By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Lawley v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. If defendants breached their disability insurance contract with plaintiff, they did so when they denied her claim on March 28, 2003, not every time a monthly disability payment was due. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2011 complaint was not timely filed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 24,2012
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Sharpe Images, Inc. Where the business insurance policy at issue includes only defendant Sharpe Images, Inc. on the declarations page that lists the insured parties, and where the policy denies coverage to any “limited liability company … not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations,” defendant Nextplans, LLC – a wholly owned subsidiary of Sharpe Images – is not insured by the policy.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 21,2012
Kielbania v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co. Based on a drawn-out appraisal process that ignored some losses and changed the value of others without explanation, plaintiffs have presented a jury question as to their claims of unfair insurance settlement practices and bad faith refusal to settle a claim.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 17,2012
Smithey v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Plaintiff remains in actual or constructive possession of funds that she received in settlement of a personal injury claim. Pursuant to the parties’ healthcare plan, defendants seek reimbursement of medical expenses that defendants advanced because of plaintiff’s personal injury.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 6,2012
Liberty Corporate Capital, Ltd. v. Delta Pi Chapter Even if defendant Cassady was acting within the scope of his duties as chapter vice-president and on behalf of his fraternity when he hosted an off-campus party, since the party violated the fraternity’s policies, Mr. Cassady was not an “insured” within the meaning of the insurance policy issued by plaintiff to the national fraternity.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
Prouse v. Bituminous Casualty Corp. Plaintiff’s accident occurred when a tire fell off another vehicle and struck the truck in which plaintiff was riding, causing the driver to lose control. There was no contact between the truck and the other vehicle; therefore, G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(3)(b) does not apply, and plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 31,2012
Glendale LLC v. Amco Insurance Co. Where the appraisal provision in the parties’ insurance policy was followed, the appraisers’ award is binding absent proof of impeaching circumstances.
By Jennifer McGivney
Published: July 12,2012
ESAB Group Inc. v. Zurich Insurance PLC The 4th Circuit upholds a district court order requiring a South Carolina manufacturer facing multi-million dollar products liability claims to arbitrate a coverage dispute with an insurance carrier under a foreign arbitration agreement, and remanding certain non-arbitrable claims to state court.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 12,2012
McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. A bank employee who paid for life insurance for her daughter through her employee benefit plan, but who was denied insurance benefits when her 25-year-old daughter died, has her claim for “equitable relief” for the insurance carrier’s breach of fiduciary duty reconsidered by the 4th Circuit, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 11,2012
Patel v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. The parties’ insurance policy gives the defendant-insurer the option of paying either fair market value or replacement value for the plaintiff’s hotel, which was destroyed by fire. However, instead of granting summary judgment for the insurer, the trial court should have stayed this action until the parties completed the appraisal process set out in the policy.
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
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
