North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

On an issue of first impression, the court declines to dismiss a life insurance company’s challenge to a policy it issued more than two years ago—despite the policy’s two-year incontestability clause, mandated by G.S. § 58-58-22(2)—when that challenge is based ...

Where (1) the defendant North Carolina resident bought an auto insurance policy with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of $50,000 per person from plaintiff North Carolina Farm Bureau; (2) while traveling in Alabama, defendant was a passenger in her Tennessee-resident sister’s ...

Excess insurer Arrowood Indemnity Co. relies on an unsigned pollution exclusion endorsement to argue that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for coverage related to coal ash liabilities. Where the policy stated that its terms could not ...

Where the insurance company filed an interpleader action to limit its liability in connection with suits brought against a convenience store arising out of the sale of alcohol to minors, the district court erred in dismissing the action. Because the ...

Where an insurance policy provided coverage to affiliates of the Episcopal Church, that policy extended to a breakaway parish that is embroiled in litigation against the diocese. Nothing in the master policy suggested the insurance company has the duty—or the ...

  The defendant-attorney and law firm were sued in a class action for violating the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) based on their use of DMV records to send marketing materials to individuals who had been involved ...

Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence showed that he restored a 1966 Mustang and told his insurance agent he wanted classic car coverage. The insurance agent appraised the restored car at $24,000, the defendant-insurer confirmed the policy change, and plaintiff started paying ...

  Although the defendant-estate’s decedent had his own insurance that covered a car he bought from the defendant-dealership on a Saturday, since the decedent’s financing was not yet finalized, under G.S. § 20-75.1 the dealership’s insurance applied when the decedent ...

  Our Supreme Court has held that “where the date of the injury-in-fact can be known with certainty, the insurance policy or policies on the risk on that date are triggered.” Gaston Cnty. Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Northfield Insurance Co., ...

In a 1997 letter, the plaintiff-insured gave the defendant-excess insurer notice of circumstances that might, at some later date, give rise to a claim involving coal ash. However, in a 2000 letter, plaintiff withdrew its notice, agreeing that defendant had ...