## Facts

- Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis sued CenturyTel, Inc. on behalf of themselves and a certified class of CenturyTel telephone customers.
- CenturyTel offered local telephone service and also offered an optional inside-wire maintenance plan (often described as “WireWatch” or an inside-wire maintenance program).
- Plaintiffs alleged CenturyTel placed recurring monthly charges for the optional maintenance service on customer bills without adequate authorization or disclosure.
- The monthly charge was small (often under a dollar) and was allegedly listed on bills with descriptions that could be unclear (such as “Non‑Regulated Service”).
- Plaintiffs filed suit on October 29, 2002, seeking relief for customers who were billed for the inside-wire maintenance charges during a broader period that could extend earlier than two years before filing if customers did not know and could not reasonably have known of the basis for their claims.
- CenturyTel moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the applicable limitations period limited damages to the two years before the complaint (back to October 29, 2000).
- CenturyTel’s argument rested on the view that customers, as a matter of law, should have discovered the challenged charges when they received their monthly bills and therefore could not rely on a discovery-rule theory to reach earlier charges.

## Issues

1. Whether CenturyTel was entitled to partial summary judgment limiting the class’s recoverable damages to the two-year period before the complaint because customers should have discovered the allegedly unauthorized charges from the face of their monthly bills as a matter of law.
2. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, the timing of reasonable discovery of the claims presented factual questions that must be resolved by the factfinder rather than decided on a limitations defense at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied CenturyTel’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court declined to rule, as a matter of law, that the receipt of monthly bills containing a small charge with an arguably unclear description necessarily put customers on notice and triggered a duty to investigate.
- The court held that determining when a reasonable customer should have discovered the basis for the claims required fact-dependent inferences that could not be resolved against plaintiffs on summary judgment.
- Because the limitations defense turned on disputed facts (and competing reasonable inferences from the billing descriptions and context), CenturyTel was not entitled to cut off damages outside the two-year period at this stage.

## Legal Principles

- A statute-of-limitations defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant seeking summary judgment must show there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the defense applies as a matter of law.
- On summary judgment, the court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
- When a limitations period can be affected by a discovery-rule or notice-based accrual theory, the question often becomes when the plaintiff discovered, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the basis of the claim.
- Whether a billing statement provides sufficient notice to a reasonable consumer can be a fact question, especially where the charge is small and the description is arguably unclear; such circumstances do not automatically create inquiry notice as a matter of law.
- If resolving the limitations defense depends on weighing competing inferences about consumer understanding and reasonable diligence, summary judgment is improper.

## Conclusion

Beattie v. CenturyTel denied CenturyTel’s attempt to limit class damages to the two years before suit, holding that the effect of small, arguably unclear billing descriptions on when customers reasonably should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing presented fact questions that could not be decided as a matter of law on partial summary judgment.


Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113750 (2009)