Insurance – Disability – Subjective Symptoms – ‘Proof’ – Abuse of Discretion Standard

Insurance – Disability – Subjective Symptoms – ‘Proof’ – Abuse of Discretion Standard (access required)

Cosey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America Even though all of plaintiff’s medical complaints are subjective, the defendant-insurer was still entitled to require objective “proof” of plaintiff’s claimed disability. The court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Criminal Practice – Sex Offender Registry – Termination – State’s Appeal (access required)

In re Bunch The state argues on appeal that the trial court exceeded its authority when it terminated the sex offender registration requirement for a petitioner who had not been on the N.C. sex offender registry for at least 10 years (on the grounds that petitioner was never required to register in North Carolina in the first place); however, at the trial court level, the state merely stood silent. The state has failed to preserve its arguments for appeal

Administrative – Driver’s License Revocation – Rules of Evidence — DWI – Breath Test Refusal (access required)

Johnson v. Robertson Under N.C. R. Evid. 1101, the Rules of Evidence apply “to all actions and proceedings in the courts of this State” and if otherwise provided by statute. Rule 1101 further provides that the Rules of Evidence do not apply in certain proceedings, including preliminary questions of fact, grand jury proceedings, sentencing hearings, probation revocation hearings, and probable cause hearings. Petitioner has cited no other statute that otherwise provides for the application of the Rules of Evidence to hearings pursuant to G.S. § 20-16.2. After reviewing applicable statutes, we hold the Rules of Evidence do not apply to DMV hearings held pursuant to § 20-16.2.

Workers’ Compensation – Uninsured Employer – Settlement Agreement – Disapproval – Piercing the Corporate Veil – Attorney’s Fees (access required)

Allred v. Exceptional Landscapes, Inc. Even though G.S. § 97-94(b) appears to give an employee of an uninsured employer the option of suing under the Workers’ Compensation Act or “at law,” and even though the parties believed they were settling the employee’s claim “at law,” since the employee had already filed a claim with the Industrial Commission, the Commission had jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the settlement agreement.