 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pappano v. Chevy Chase Bank8/30/2002
ppanos were not provided with a policy or certificates by either the Bank or Union Security Life.
On August 19, 1996, Leonard Pappano died. According to Mrs. Pappano, she thereafter became responsible for handling numerous personal and family affairs, which previously had been seen to by her late husband, including the education of their children. In January 1997 she underwent major surgery.
Sometime in the spring of 1997, appellant inquired at a branch of the Bank as to whether life insurance benefits were payable as a result of her husband's death. The branch manager replied in the negative, but left appellant "with a sense that something was not right." She made at least two subsequent inquiries at the branch, and was told each time that no insurance existed.
In 1999 appellant decided to sell her residence. In connection with the sale and closing, the Bank, on July 21, 1999, addressed a letter to "Leonard Anthony Pappano" certifying the payoff amount for the line of credit. Included in that statement was a line item reading: "Insurance (Credit Life): $54.47." After seeing this, on August 2, 1999, appellant contacted the Bank's benefits department to inquire if there was insurance on her husband's life. A bank employee responded that there was such coverage, but later recanted, saying that she had been mistaken, that the insurance coverage was on appellant's life only, and that there was no coverage on the life of Mr. Pappano.
On December 17, 1999, Mrs. Pappano filed a six count complaint against the Bank, sounding in both contract and tort. As the names of the various credit life insurance providers became known to her in the course of discovery, she twice amended her complaint.
Chevy Chase and American General filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Md. Rule 2-501 asserting that appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motions at which all parties were represented. Union Security Life, having been served only days before the hearing, was likewise represented and its counsel moved orally for summary judgment.
After taking limited, and incomplete, testimony from appellant, the circuit court heard full argument from counsel for all parties. At the close of arguments, the court announced from the bench:
The issue that is before me is whether or not her claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. I have to say that has been submitted, and the difficulty that I have is that the commencement of the statute of limitations is when the elements are present and the knowledge of the facts and circumstances are sufficient to put the plaintiff on appropriate notice to make inquiry, and there is no dispute that the plaintiff's husband died on August 19, 1996.
The cause of action that is being asserted here today is negligent failure to obtain insurance, breach of a contract to procure insurance, and claims arising from that.
The plaintiff was on notice to make inquiry as of August 19, 1996. At that time she had a duty to seek out the facts supporting her cause of action.
The statute of limitations began to run as of that time. The lawsuit was not filed until after the three-year limitation ran.
Accordingly, I will grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Immediately thereafter, counsel for Union Security orally moved to join the motions, which the court granted. The court then extended the summary judgment to Union Security Life as well as to all other defendants.
The circuit court later entered orders dated May 24, 2001 and June 8, 2001, from which this ap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|