Akinwamide, Patrick Olajide v. Transportation Insurance Company, Automatic Data Processing Inc., and CNA Insurance Co.--Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County

Affirmed and Plurality Memorandum and Concurring Memorandum Opinions filed May 8, 2003

Affirmed and Plurality Memorandum and Concurring Memorandum Opinions filed May 8, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00582-CV

____________

PATRICK OLAJIDE AKINWAMIDE, Appellant

V.

TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-34382

C O N C U R R I N G M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellees/defendants Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company, and Automatic Data Processing, Inc. met their burden as summary-judgment movants by conclusively establishing their affirmative defense of limitations to the fraud and conspiracy claims asserted by appellant/plaintiff Patrick Olajide Adinwamide. Although Adinwamide did assert fraudulent concealment as an equitable estoppel to toll the running of the limitations period, he still had to raise a fact issue in this regard to avoid summary judgment. Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836, 846 (Tex. 2001). He could not be successful absent summary-judgment evidence showing that one or more of the defendants knew that Adinwamide had been wronged and concealed that fact to deceive him. See id. The record does not contain competent summary-judgment evidence raising a fact issue as to whether any of the defendants knew that Adinwamide had been wronged and concealed that fact to deceive him. See id. (holding summary-judgment evidence did not raise fact issue as to fraudulent concealment allegation by plaintiff). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, and this court is correct to affirm the trial court=s judgment.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost

Justice

Judgment rendered and Plurality Memorandum and Concurring Memorandum Opinions filed May 8, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost. (Anderson, J., plurality) (Yates, J., concurs in the result only)