Grooms v. Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company
Filing
60
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/3/2014.(tmcb, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Angela Grooms, Individually and
as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Debbie Knotts,
(Deceased),
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Globe Life and Accident Insurance )
Company, a/k/a Globe Life
)
Insurance Company,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-2356-RBH
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #44] motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff seeks an order precluding the Defendant from raising the defense of fraudulent
misrepresentation. Plaintiff argues that there is no evidence in the record to support Defendant’s
allegation that the deceased “knew,” at the time she completed her policy application, that she had
cancer or a chronic illness or condition that may require periodic treatment or surgery. For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Factual Background
On January 10, 2011, Debbie Knotts reported to the Little River Medical Center
complaining of a lump on her right breast. The medical record indicates Ms. Knotts found the lump
sometime after Thanksgiving. [Docket Entry 48-1, at 2, Little River Medical Center record]. Little
River Medical Center did not offer a definitive diagnosis but referred Ms. Knotts to Conway
Hospital for an ultrasound of the breast on January 14, 2011.
1
On January 11, 2011, Ms. Knotts applied online for a life insurance policy with Defendant,
Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company (hereinafter “Globe”). The online policy application
consisted of four questions including: a) “In the past 3 years, has the Proposed Insured had or been
treated for . . .cancer . . .?;” and b) “Does the Proposed Insured have any chronic illness or condition
which requires periodic medical care or may require future surgery?” Ms. Knotts responded “No”
to both questions. [Docket Entry #44-6, Policy application].
On January 12, 2011, a representative from Globe contacted Ms. Knotts to conduct a
telephone interview. During the interview, Ms. Knotts was asked, “Do you have any growths that
have been checked or should have been checked by a doctor?” Ms. Knotts answered “No.” [Docket
Entry #48-2, Recorded telephone interview].
Globe issued the life insurance policy to Ms. Knotts effective January 13, 2011, in the
amount of $50,000.00. [Docket Entry #44-8, Policy certificate].
On January 14, 2011, Ms. Knotts had an ultrasound of the breast, which revealed a “3 cm
solid mass within the right breast.” [Docket Entry #44-3, Conway Medical Center record]. A biopsy
was performed on January 17, 2011, at Georgetown Hospital System and confirmed that Ms. Knotts
had a “malignant neoplasm most consistent with infiltrating mammary carcinoma” or breast cancer.
[Docket Entry #44-5, Georgetown Hospital System pathology report].
According to an affidavit submitted by Angela Grooms,1 Ms. Knotts was informed that she
1
Angela Grooms is Debbie Knotts’ sister and personal representative of the estate
of Debbie Knotts. Ms. Grooms accompanied Ms. Knotts to several doctor’s
appointments related to her diagnosis including the January 21, 2011 appointment during
which Ms. Knotts learned of her cancer diagnosis.
2
had breast cancer on January 21, 2011, during an appointment with Dr. Craig Brackett.2 [Docket
Entry #44-10, Affidavit of Angela Grooms].
Debbie Knotts passed away on September 10, 2011, from acute cardiopulmonary arrest and
breast cancer. [Docket Entry #44-4, Death certificate]. On September 22, 2011, Angela Grooms
submitted a claim for benefits on the Globe life insurance policy.
Globe denied Ms. Grooms’ life insurance claim in a letter dated November 10, 2011, stating
that “[i]f the Company had been aware of Debbie L. Knotts’ medical history at the time of the
application, we would have been unable to approve her for coverage under this policy.” [Docket
Entry #44-7, Denial letter]. Accordingly, Globe rescinded the policy and refunded all premiums
paid. This lawsuit followed.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for: 1) bad faith denial of insurance
benefits; 2) attorneys’ fees based on unreasonable denial of insurance benefits; 3) breach of contract
and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) breach of contract accompanied by
fraudulent act; 5) negligent misrepresentation; and 6) violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a). [Docket Entry #18, Amended Complaint]. Defendant
Globe responded raising several defenses including that Debbie Knotts intentionally or fraudulently
misrepresented her medical condition during the application and enrollment process. [Docket Entry
#19, Answer to Amended Complaint].
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation arguing,
in essence, that Ms. Knotts could not have misrepresented her medical history or condition because
2
Dr. Brackett noted that Ms. Knotts had a family history of breast cancer with two
maternal aunts and one paternal cousin with breast cancer. [Docket Entry #44-2, Coastal
Carolina Breast Center record].
3
she did not know she had cancer until she received the official cancer diagnosis on January 21,
2011, approximately 10 days after she applied for the life insurance policy.
Standard of Review
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a) (2010). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . .; or (B) showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
When no genuine issue of any material fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. See
Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The facts and inferences to be drawn from
the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. However, "the
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue
of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
"Once the moving party has met [its] burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with
some evidence beyond the mere allegations contained in the pleadings to show that there is a
genuine issue for trial." Baber v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992). The
nonmoving party may not rely on beliefs, conjecture, unsupported speculation, or conclusory
allegations to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Baber, 977 F.2d at 875. Rather, the
nonmoving party is required to submit evidence of specific facts by way of affidavits, depositions,
interrogatories, or admissions to demonstrate the existence of a genuine and material factual issue
4
for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Discussion
In order to void an insurance policy on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, the
insurer must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that: 1) the statement was false; 2) the
applicant knew the statement was false; 3) the statement was material; 4) the insurer relied on the
statement; and 5) the statement was made with the intent to defraud the insurer. Strickland v.
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 292 S.E.2d 301, 304 (S.C. 1982). Plaintiff argues that summary
judgment on the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation is proper because there is no evidence to
suggest that Debbie Knotts knew she had cancer or a chronic condition at the time she completed
her policy application.
There is, however, circumstantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Knotts fraudulently misrepresented her medical condition at the time of her application.
Although Ms. Knotts did not receive a definitive cancer diagnosis until January 21, 2011, ten days
after her policy application, she did seek treatment for a lump on her breast the day before she
applied for the life insurance policy. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Globe, the
proximity between Knotts’ initial treatment for the lump on her breast and her application for life
insurance the following day, coupled with her family history of breast cancer, is evidence from
which a reasonable juror could conclude that Ms. Knotts knew she had cancer or a chronic condition
at the time she completed her policy application. It is a disputed question of fact and simply cannot
be said at this point, as a matter of law, that Ms. Knotts did not intentionally misrepresent her
medical history when she denied having cancer or a chronic condition in her policy application.
5
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #44] motion for summary judgment
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 3, 2014
Florence, South Carolina
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?