Opinion
1:3CV195
September 16, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. #6]. For the reasons stated below, the Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
I.
The allegations of the complaint, stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are as follows. Plaintiff Elizabeth Mebane (Ms. Mebane) resides in Burlington, North Carolina. Throughout the 1980s, Ms. Mebane worked for Dr. Stephen Thomas in his dentistry practice. Because Ms. Mebane did not have a retirement plan through her employment with Dr. Thomas, she purchased a $50,000 life insurance policy on Dr. Thomas' life, naming herself as beneficiary. Ms. Mebane purchased this policy from Defendant Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company (Phoenix), a New York company.
On May 28, 1999, after approximately fourteen years of coverage, Phoenix sent Ms. Mebane a notice of lapse of coverage. Phoenix requested that Ms. Mebane contact Edie Scott with Phoenix Variable Products Mail Operation for more details. Ms. Scott allegedly told Ms. Mebane that the policy would be reinstated if Ms. Mebane sent Phoenix two installments of $700 each. Ms. Mebane understood that the policy would be reinstated as of the date of the first installment payment.
The complaint refers to the contact person in different paragraphs as Edie Scott (Compl. ¶ 10, 16), Mrs. Eddy Scott (Compl. ¶ 13) and Mrs. Eddie Scott (Compl. ¶ 18, 22).
Ms. Mebane purchased a cashier's check on June 10, 1999 and had the bank send the check to Phoenix. Phoenix, through Ms. Scott, allegedly refused the $700 payment on June 17, 1999, demanding $1104 instead. Shortly after Ms. Scott's refusal to accept Ms. Mebane's payment, Dr. Thomas died and Ms. Mebane made a claim on the policy. Phoenix denied Ms. Mebane's claim on January 10, 2000 without making any reference to the reinstatement agreement.
The complaint states two different dates for the check purchase: June 10, 1999 (Compl. ¶ 11) and June 16, 1999 (Compl. 117).
The complaint does not provide any date.
Ms. Mebane filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Alamance County against Phoenix and its parent company Phoenix Companies, Inc. on January 29, 2003, alleging breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith.
Defendants removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
The Defendants contend that Ms. Mebane's cause of action should be dismissed because she fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted only if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, it appears certain that Ms. Mebane cannot prove any set of facts in support of her claims which would entitle her to relief.Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). A motion for failure to state a claim is properly raised when the facts as alleged in the complaint show that the action was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations. I R Constr. Prods Co., Inc. v. D.R. Alien Son, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 895 (W.D.N.C.1990);2A Moore's Federal Practice, 12.07 at 12-85 (Matthew Bender 1989).
The statute of limitation for any action on an obligation or liability arising out of a contract in North Carolina is three years. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (1983). The statute begins to run when the plaintiff's right to maintain an action for the alleged breach accrued: on the date the promise was allegedly broken. Penley v. Penley, 314 N.C. 1, 20, 332 S.E.2d 51, 62 (1985) (citing Pickett v. Rigsbee, 252 N.C. 200, 113 S.E.2d 323 (1960)). The date of the breach must be clear from the face of the complaint in order for a motion to dismiss to survive.IR Constr. Prods, 737 F. Supp. at 896.
The complaint fails to clarify the particular breach Ms. Mebane is protesting, hence the date for measuring the statute of limitations is unclear. The complaint first characterizes the failure of Phoenix's agent, Ms. Scott, to accept Ms. Mebane's $700 payment as a breach of the reinstatement agreement. (Compl. ¶ 17-18, 25). However, the complaint also seems to indicate that Phoenix's failure to pay Ms. Mebane's insurance claim is the breach in question. (Compl. ¶ 21-24)
Regardless of which breach is used to calculate the date of breach for statute of limitations purposes, Ms. Mebane's action is untimely. If Ms. Mebane seeks contractual relief for Phoenix's alleged promise to reinstate her insurance policy, the date of breach is June 17, 1999, the date Ms. Scott refused to honor her agreement to accept the $700 payment. If Ms. Mebane seeks contractual relief because Phoenix denied her insurance claim, the date of breach is January 10, 2000, the date Phoenix denied the claim. Because Ms. Mebane filed this action on January 29, 2003, the action is beyond the three year statute of limitations regardless of the date of the breach.
For purposes of 12(b)(6), Ms. Mebane's allegations are not sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of an implied covenant of good faith arising out of the contract. The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.