 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County11/9/2005
cksons were not aware that the Metropolitan Government had breached its contractual obligation to inform Mr. Jackson of the existence of this benefit. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to impute either to Mr. Jackson or Ms. Jackson independent knowledge of the details of the group life insurance policy that the Metropolitan Government had purchased or of the provision in the Metropolitan Code requiring that a waiver of premium benefit be included in the group life insurance contract.
Thus, for the purposes of the discovery rule, it would have been difficult for the Jacksons to be aware of or discover that the Metropolitan Government had breached its contract in 1987 by failing to inform them of the existence of the waiver of premium benefit. The Metropolitan Government was in a far superior position when compared to the Jacksons, and because of its failure to notify them of the existence of this benefit, the Metropolitan Government had reason to believe that the Jacksons were unaware of both the existence of the benefit and the Metropolitan Government's breach.
Ms. Jackson first learned of the existence of the waiver of premium benefit in July 1998 when she applied for benefits following her husband's death. She was told at that time that she was ineligible for this benefit because Mr. Jackson had failed to apply for and qualify for the benefit within two years following his disability retirement in 1987. Ms. Jackson filed her lawsuit against the Metropolitan Government in December 2001, within six years following her discovery of the existence of the benefit and the Metropolitan Government's breach of contract. We have determined that Ms. Jackson may invoke the discovery rule and, therefore, that her complaint was timely filed. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment dismissing her breach of contract claim on the ground that it was not timely filed.
V. Mr. Reese's Breach of Contract Claim
Mr. Reese's claim stands on a factual footing far different from the claims of the other surviving spouses because his wife is the only employee who received timely notice of the waiver of premium benefit. Ms. Reese took disability retirement in February 1996, and in April 1996 she received two documents from the Metropolitan Government informing her of the waiver of premium benefit and the steps to be taken to qualify for it. Despite this information, Ms. Reese did not apply for the benefit until July 1999. Her application was rejected because it had not been filed within two years after she qualified for disability retirement.
Up to this point, the facts clearly do not support a breach of contract claim because the Metropolitan Government fulfilled its obligation under Metro. Code ยง 3.08.040(A)(3) to provide Ms. Reese "full information" regarding her rights and status. However, Mr. Reese relies on events occurring after July 1999 to support his breach of contract claim. On July 20, 2000, Aetna Life Insurance Company's manager of the Metropolitan Government's account wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Government proposing a "one time exception" for employees currently on disability who had failed to qualify for the waiver of premium benefit within two years of taking disability retirement. The Metropolitan Government declined this offer, apparently because it would have cost over $10,000,000. The Metropolitan Government never informed the persons on disability retirement of Aetna's offer or of its decision to reject the offer.
Ms. Reese died in April 2001. In his complaint filed in July 2001, Mr. Reese asserts that the Metropolitan Government breached its contract by failing to inform Ms. Reese of Aetna's proposal to offer employee's like his w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|