Page 63 - 2311_full

This is a SEO version of 2311_full. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »
FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE 
SIDELINES NOVEMBER 2011 61
district court agreed that the Simpkins were entitled to have the case
dismissed on summary judgment because the time frame for bring
such a law suit had passed at the time the plaintiff fled their lawsuit.
Statute of Limitations under Texas Law
Under Texas law there is a two year statute of limitations under
which a plaintiff can fle a claim for negligence. However there is a
four year statute of limitations period for breach of contract, fraud and
breach of fduciary duty.
The Welks raised three issues concerning the lower court’s
decision to dismiss the allegation of fraudulent concealment as being
time bared. They based their argument on the claim that because
the Simkins affrmatively misrepresented to the Welks that they had
not authorized Dr. Foland’s injections of their horse, the statute of
limitations should be tolled (legally held on delay).
The Plaintiffs argued that the district court improperly made
determinations as to the credibility of the parties when it decided that
the statute of limitations would not be tolled based on the allegation
of fraudulent concealment. The Plaintiffs also asserted that there
existed an informal fduciary relationship between the owners and the
trainers of the horse and that the existence of this relationship meant
that the Simpkins had an affrmative duty to disclose their misconduct
to the Welks. If found, such a duty would have tolled the statute of
limitations.
Fraudulent Concealment
TheAppealsCourt foundthataplaintiff raisingfraudulentconcealment
as the reason for a court granting the tolling of a statute of limitation
must establish four elements: 1. The existence of the underlying tort;
2. The defendant’s knowledge of the tort; 3. The defendant’s use of
deception to conceal the tort; and 4. The plaintiff’s reasonable reliance
on the deception.
In an attempt to prove their
case, the Welks argued that the
Simpkins misrepresented that
they had not told the veterinarian
to inject the horse and that this
misrepresentation should cause
the statute of limitations to be
tolled on their claims until August
of 2007. The 2007 date was
argued as the time at which the
Simpkins allegedly admitted to
authorizing the injections.
Specifcally, the Court came
to the conclusion that fraudulent
concealment only delays the
statute of limitations from running
until such time as the plaintiff
learns of the facts that gave
rise to the action (the fraudulent
concealment) or the time that they, as plaintiffs, should have learned
of the circumstances giving rise to fraudulent concealment. The
standard is; would a reasonable person have made an inquiry under
these circumstances which would have ultimately led to the plaintiff
discovering the concealment?
As a result, the Court found that Welks failed to establish the 4th
element necessary to fnd fraudulent concealment. The Court could
not fnd that evidence had been provided which showed that Welks
had reasonably relied on any deception by Simpkins.
Informal Fiduciary Relationship
The Welks’ fnal argument was that the Simpkins had an affrmative
duty to disclose their misconduct to the Welks because there had
been an informal fduciary relationship between the trainers and
clients based on years of friendship as well the Welks having sent
numerous horses to the Simpkins for training.
Ultimately the Court found that the Welks had failed to present any
evidence to establish such a relationship and stated that “the fact a
business relationship has been cordial and of long duration is not by
itself evidence of a fduciary relationship.”
As a result the Welks’ fnal argument failed and the case was
dismissed based on the statute of limitations having lapsed at the time
the lawsuit was fled.
Conclusion
While this case touches upon numerous legal issues it does serve
to caution a potential plaintiff as to the need to fle with the courts in
a timely manner. There is an old legal saying “one should not sit on
their rights.” Had the Welks understood that perhaps the outcome of
the case would have been different.
Wellington Commerce Park •
3103 Fortune Way, Wellington, FL
561.790.4433
fax: 790.6366
Let Us Handle All Your Insurance Claims
MV38096