Claimants Misrepresentation Claim by Agents Denied

    The claimant’s argument that he was misled by agents on benefits under disability policies was overruled on summary judgment and affirmed by the appellate court. Wooten v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 5653 (Tex. Ct. App. July 31, 2023).

    Wrenn Wooten, a MRI radiologist, purchased seven policies from Northwestern Mutual. Three were disability income policies. Four were various whole-life polices. Wooten purchased and reviewed the last of the policies in December 2005.

    More than a decade later, Wooten filed suit against Jim Zara, Patrick Matthews, both of whom were agents, and Northwestern Mutual. He alleged Zara sold him the policies, misrepresented coverage and benefits, wrongfully advised him and concealed misrepresentations. Further Zara misrepresented that the policy would provide disability income even if Wooten was able to work in another field. When Matthews became his agent, Wooten alleged he failed to disclose the disability policies were not occupation specific and that the life insurance policies were not suitable for retirement income as promised. Wooten alleged Northwestern Mutual was vicariously liable for the conduct of Zara and Matthews. 

    Wooten never filed a disability claim. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The lower court found the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The suit limitation for claims for negligent misrepresentation and for violation of the Texas Insurance Code was two years. The limitations period for breach of fiduciary duty was four years. Summary judgment was granted to defendants.

    The court found appellees carried their summary judgment burden of conclusively proving Wooten’s claims accrued at the time he purchased each policy. An insured had a duty to read the policy, and failing to do so, was charged with knowledge of the policy’s terms and conditions. 

    Wooten, however, argued the discovery rule delayed accrual of his claims and that he timely filed his lawsuit. Wooten hired someone to read the policies and was then informed he was not property insured. Within two years of this advice, he sued, although it was long after the applicable statute of limitation periods. 

    The summary judgment evidence conclusively demonstrated Wooten actually reviewed the policies. He knew or should have known at the time he bought the policies that they did not provide the coverage or benefits appellees allegedly represented. Consequently, appellees conclusively demonstrated in the trial court that the alleged injuries were not “inherently undiscoverable” and that the discovery rule did not apply