By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 30,2012
Creed v. Smith The plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration should have been granted because his insurance company’s liability limits had been “exhausted” for the purposes of G.S. § 20-279.21 and the underinsured motorist policies of the plaintiff and his employer.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 22,2012
Creed v. Smith Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration should have been granted because his insurance company’s liability limits had been “exhausted” for the purposes of G.S. § 20-279.21 and the underinsured motorist policies of plaintiff and his employer.
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: April 26,2012
Armwood v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. The minor plaintiff was injured due to the negligence of the driver of a bus, which did not have the minimum $5 million in “financial responsibility” required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act. This lawsuit seeks amendment of the liability amount for which the defendant-insurer would be responsible. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, they were not required to wait until they had a judgment before they filed a claim under the Act; in fact, the judgment in the underlying state-court action between plaintiffs and the bus’s insurer bars plaintiffs’ claim under the Act.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 9,2012
Greco v. Penn National Security Insurance Co. Although the defendant-insurer would be relieved of its duties under the policy if an insured’s refusal to cooperate prejudiced the insurer’s ability to investigate the accident, the insurer’s mere inability to locate an insured driver is not enough to show prejudice.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 15,2011
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Erie Insurance Co. In this subrogation action, the plaintiff-insurer has no greater rights than its insureds. Since plaintiff filed this action more than three years after the accident from which it arose, plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. We affirm the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 8,2011
Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co. v. Rikard Where the plaintiff-insurer mailed defendant’s decedents an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage selection/rejection form several times, but where the decedents never filled out or returned the form, the mailing of the form was sufficient to preclude a holding that a total failure to notify occurred. We extend the reasoning of Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Martinson, 701 S.E.2d 390 (2010), to questions of underinsured motorist coverage.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 8,2011
Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co. v. McNeill In his deposition, an insured said the signature on an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage selection/rejection form did not look like his signature but that it could be; his subsequent affidavit was an explanation - and not a contradiction - of his deposition when it said that, upon further reflection, he had determined that it was not his signature.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 29,2011
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Woodie’s Painting, Inc. Even though the insurance policy form could apply to either an individual or corporate insured, there is no ambiguity here since the insurance application made it clear that the defendant-corporation - and not its owner - was to be the insured. We affirm summary judgment for the plaintiff-insurer.
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.
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. Bean Although the state elicited evidence that defendant exercised her right to remain silent, given the other evidence of defendant’s guilt – her own admissions to a nurse, “I killed my husband just because I finally had enough of him” and “I’m guilty” and the victim’s fear that defendant would kill him – the prosecutor’s comments and questions regarding whether defendant mentioned self-defense prior to trial had little bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty.
State v. Primus Even though the list of the elements of attempted felonious larceny set out in State v. Weaver, 123 N.C. App. 276, 473 S.E.2d 362 (1996), included “falling short of the completed offense,” and even though the state proved that defendant completed the offense of felonious larceny, this does not require the conclusion that proof of the completed offense disproves the attempt to commit. The completed commission of a crime must of necessity include an attempt to commit the crime.
State v. Ingram though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury.
