John Daugherty v. Unum Group, No. 20-1271 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court correctly determined plaintiff's claims for long-term disability benefits were time-barred under the three-year limitations period stated in the policy.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1271 ___________________________ John L. Daugherty, M.D. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Unum Group, doing business as Unum Group Corporation; Paul Revere Life Insurance Company lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: December 14, 2020 Filed: December 17, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dr. John Daugherty appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his diversity action seeking additional long-term disability 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. benefits. Upon careful de novo review, see Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 964 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree that Daugherty’s claims were time-barred under the 3-year contractual limitations period, see Wilkins v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 299 F.3d 945, 948-49 (8th Cir. 2002) (action seeking disability benefits was time-barred under 3-year limitations period stated in policy); and that the longer limitations period in Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-202 was inapplicable, as the disability insurance policies at issue were not property insurance, see Ark. Code Ann. §§ 23-62-103 (defining accident and health insurance), 23-62104 (defining property insurance); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Johnson, 719 F.3d 1010, 1015 (8th Cir. 2013) (under Arkansas law, first rule in determining meaning of statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
