Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co.
behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
United Equitable Insurance Company,
Standard Life and Accident
Insurance Company, Defendants and Appellees
and
United Equitable Life Insurance
Company, Defendant
Judge Lawrence A. Leclerc
| Appellant: | Vogel Law Firm | |
| Appellant: | Dickson Law Office | |
| Appellee: | Zuger Kirmis & Smith | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellee: | Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck & Selbo, Ltd. | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellant: | Vogel Law Firm |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Whether the District Court properly determined as a matter of law that a reasonable person would have been put on notice to inquire about the possible existence of a claim more than six years before this civil action was commenced?
- More specifically, whether Plaintiff Frank Rose's notice and payment of five premium increases, accounting for more than 75 percent of the premium increases the Complaint alleges were "exorbitant" (and for which the Complaint seeks money damages), more than six years before this civil action was commenced, were sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice to inquire about the possible existence of a claim, such that the statute of limitations began to run and expired so as to bar this action?
2. In the alternative, whether Plaintiff Frank Rose satisfied the conditions precedent essential to the commencement of a civil action for "fraud"?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the District Court properly determined as a matter of law that a reasonable person would have been put on notice to inquire about the possible existence of a claim more than six years before this civil action was commenced?
- More specifically, whether Plaintiff Frank Rose's notice and payment of five premium increases, accounting for more than 75 percent of the premium increases the Complaint alleges were "exorbitant" (and for which the Complaint seeks money damages), more than six years before this civil action was commenced, were sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice to inquire about the possible existence of a claim, such that the statute of limitations began to run and expired so as to bar this action?
2. In the alternative, whether Plaintiff Frank Rose satisfied the conditions precedent essential to the commencement of a civil action for "fraud"?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the plaintiff's claim that he has suffered damages as a result of increased premiums allegedly improperly charged to him is barred because he had notice of the premium increase more than six years prior to commencing this action.
Add Docket 20000333 RSS