By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 21,2011
Herbert v. Marcaccio The plaintiff waived her right to arbitration in a UIM action since the insurer was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s two-year time delay because it was required to spend a significant amount of resources to defend the suit which would have been unnecessary had a demand for arbitration been made earlier. We affirm the trial court’s order.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 30,2011
Miller & Long, Inc. v. Intracoastal Living, LLC Even though the parties’ written subcontracts included an arbitration clause, and even though the parties had already built three buildings in the project at issue, since the parties never reduced their subcontract to writing with respect to a fourth building, the plaintiff-subcontractor’s claims with regard to the fourth building are not subject to arbitration. However, even though the parties never signed the subcontract pertaining to the third building, its arbitration clause is enforceable.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 24,2011
Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball, Ltd. v. Ottawa Rapidz The board of directors of a minor professional baseball league did not act improperly by entering an arbitration decision awarding the league the full $200,000 letter of credit a team had posted with the league to be eligible for membership.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 13,2011
Aetna Health of the Carolinas v. Piedmont Endocrinology Medical Associates, P.A. Even if some of plaintiffs' claims were brought more than three years after they arose, an arbitrator's misapplication of the law does not justify vacation of an arbitration award. The arbitrator's alleged failure to properly apply the statute of limitations provides no justification to vacate the award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 10,2011
Williamson v. Windsor House One, LLC A DSS director authorized an employee to sign "written release of information forms" and "any forms giving [her] consent for the administration of medication or treatment...." This did not give the employee authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the DSS director, who was providing protective services for plaintiff's decedent. Plaintiff is not bound by the arbitration agreement.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 3,2011
D.P. Solutions, Inc. v. Xplore-Tech Services Private Ltd. The arbitration clause in a contract executed by the corporate defendant does not apply to personal guaranties executed by the corporation's principals 11 days later. Since the guaranties do not have arbitration clauses, the trial court correctly refused to stay plaintiff's guaranty claims...
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 21,2011
United States Trust Co., N.A. v. Rich. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0419, 13 pp.) (Sanford L. Steelman Jr., J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court. (Richard D. Boner, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Where the plaintiff-employer was not a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and where [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 21,2011
Levin v. Alms & Associates Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0176, 17 pp.) (Duncan, J.) No. 10-1896, Feb. 10, 2011; USDC at Baltimore (Garbis, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: In an investment firm’s appeal of the district court’s denial of mandatory arbitration in an investor’s lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and violation of the [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 27,2011
Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC v. Nordan. The defendant's motion to vacate an order for the parties to engage in mandatory arbitration, as called for in underlying service agreements executed by the . . .
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 25,2011
Regale, Inc. v. Thee Dollhouse Productions N.C., Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-02-0092, 16 pp.) (Louise W. Flanagan, Ch.J.) E.D.N.C. Holding: The court cannot find that an arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law or that its award failed to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement. The court cannot find that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the [...]
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.
