Day v. Burnett

2 Citing cases

  1. Turfgrass Grp., Inc. v. Carolina Fresh Farms, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-00849-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2013)

    " "Ordinarily, whether a cause of action should be barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by a jury. '[B]ut where the facts are undisputed, it is for the Court to determine whether they take the case out of the statute or not.'" Day v. Burnett, 377 S.E.2d 734, 734 (Ga. App. 1989) (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original). The facts in this case as related to the statute of limitations issue are undisputed. Accordingly, the court may appropriately determine whether Plaintiffs' PVPA claim is barred by the applicable limitations period.

  2. Impac Funding Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-873-RWS (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court could not rule as a matter of law that the claims were barred by the suit-limitation provision because factual questions remained and more discovery was necessary on the issue of waiver

    In light of the foregoing account of events preceding denial of GMAC's claim, the Court cannot rule as a matter of law that the contractual limitations period is an absolute bar to the claims raised in the Complaint. See Day v. Burnett, 377 S.E.2d 734, 734 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) ("Ordinarily, whether a cause of action should be barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by a jury."). On the contrary, the Court finds that issues of fact exist as to whether Amica waived the limitations period.