DeCoursey v. American General Life Ins., No. 15-1927 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the company for interest she claimed it owed her on a payout it made on a policy. The company counterclaimed, asking for its money back because it had paid plaintiff by mistake and so plaintiff was not entitled to the payout in the first place, let alone interest. The district court granted the company summary judgment on plaintiff's claims and granted her summary judgment on the company's counterclaim. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period and held that the district court correctly found that plaintiff's claims were untimely. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the company's counterclaim failed because it neglected to discover all of the relevant facts, where the company has a perfectly straightforward claim for restitution in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Arnold, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Under Missouri law, the ten-year limitations period began to run when the insurer initially denied the claim in 1986 and not when plaintiff discovered in 2013 that the company wrongfully denied the claim; there was no evidence that the company committed any affirmative fraudulent acts which would toll the limitations period; the court is confident that if presented with the question, the Missouri Supreme Court would decide that a payor's lack of care will not diminish his right to recovery or somehow justify the payee's retention of the windfall; as a result, the district court erred in finding the insurer's action for restitution of a wrongfully paid benefit should be denied because the insurer neglected to discover all of the relevant facts before it paid the benefits.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.