MELISSA CLARK, LARRY MOFFETT, ROBERT BALENTINE, MICHAEL BROWN, DEMMIE RHODES, PEARLINE ARRINGTON, AND TYRAN HICKS, PLAINTIFFS v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION, CITIFINANCIAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, AMERICAN HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRITON INSURANCE COMPANY, L. C. WHATLEY, BETTY ANDRUS, B. F. Moss, DEBRA BRIDGES, W. G. CARRAWAY, AND JOHN DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS, 357 F. Supp. 2d 962

Summary

The insurer contended that the claims against it are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49. The remaining insured did not dispute that § 15-1-49 contained the limitations provisions applicable to the subject claims. The three year limitations period provided for by the statute began to run no later than May 11, 1995. The subject suit was filed on October 21, 2002, over seven years after execution of the insured's final loan transaction. Rather than address the substance of the insurer's statute of limitations argument, the insured argued that the defense was a common defense as described in the Smallwood decision. He was apparently arguing that the insurer was barred from now asserting the statute of limitations issue because the common defense was argued in its opposition to the his initial motion to remand. The common defense argument may have been well received at the removal/remand stage of the litigation, but it was inapplicable in the present ...