executed by plaintiffs also set forth the amount of the premiums, the fact that the premium charge was included in the amount financed, and the interest rate at which the loan would be financed. As these matters were disclosed to plaintiffs in the loan papers signed by them, the contents of which they are deemed to have knowledge, plaintiffs have no possibility of recovery on any claim premised on the alleged nondisclosure of this information. Nor do plaintiffs have any potential for recovery against these defendants based on their allegation that the insurance sold to them in connection with their loans was “inadequate,” for this charge is merely conclusory, and unaccompanied by any factual allegation. See Peters v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 164 F.Supp.2d 830, 834 (S.D.Miss.2001) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, plaintiffs do not allege that
holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit holding that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based citations omitted holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment holding that conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth