Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantlitigationdiscoverystatuteappealmotionstatute of limitations

Related Cases

Coffield v. Robinson, 245 W.Va. 55, 857 S.E.2d 395

Facts

Ronald Neil Robinson II and Karen Coffield had a brief relationship that ended in February 2000. After a one-night encounter, Coffield informed Robinson that she was pregnant but claimed it was through artificial insemination. Robinson suspected he was the father due to the child's resemblance to him and sought a paternity determination, which confirmed his paternity in 2011. He filed a civil complaint against Coffield in 2013, alleging fraud and emotional distress due to her concealment of his paternity.

The parties had a three-year relationship that ended in February 2000. A few months later, the parties spent one night together. Thereafter, Ms. Coffield told Mr. Robinson that she was pregnant, but did not disclose that he was the father of her child.

Issue

Did Karen Coffield waive her statute of limitations defense by participating in the litigation, and were Ronald Neil Robinson II's claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress time-barred?

Rule

A defendant who asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in the answer to a complaint does not waive that defense by engaging in discovery and participating in the litigation.

Analysis

The court determined that Coffield's participation in litigation did not constitute a waiver of her statute of limitations defense, as she had asserted it affirmatively in her answer. The court applied the discovery rule, concluding that Robinson's claims accrued when he became aware of his paternity on September 11, 2011, and since he did not file his complaint until September 27, 2013, his claims were time-barred.

The court determined that Coffield's participation in litigation did not constitute a waiver of her statute of limitations defense, as she had asserted it affirmatively in her answer.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's decision, ruling in favor of Coffield and remanding the case for entry of judgment as a matter of law in her favor.

Who won?

Karen Coffield prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that Ronald Neil Robinson II's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Glaser v. Schroeder, 269 Mass. 337, 168 N.E. 809

Clark v. St. John’s Hosp. of Hosp. Sisters of Third Order of St. Francis, 128 Ill.App.3d 989, 471 N.E.2d 912, 84 Ill.Dec. 146

Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707, 2010 ME 139

English v. New England Medical Center, Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 541 N.E.2d 329

Cox v. Evansville Police Dept., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 2317074