The defendant-estate’s decedent tried to buy a car from the defendant-dealership on a Saturday and took conditional delivery of the car under G.S. § 20-75.1 pending credit approval; that same day, the decedent was involved in an accident that took ...

Tagged with: Auto

Where the California plaintiff bought a 1967 Chevrolet Nova sight unseen and signed multiple documents agreeing that the purchase was “as is,” the fact that the Nova is unfit to drive does not allow him to recover for fraud, unfair ...

Tagged with: Auto

The court rejects an insurer’s interpretation of the multiple claimant exception in G.S. § § 20-279.21(b)(4) because it would limit recovery by innocent passengers depending on whether they were riding with a negligent driver or an innocent driver. We affirm ...

Tagged with: Auto

Avis Rent A Car Systems, LLC v. Andrews (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-159-17, 14 pp.) (Philip Berger Jr., J.) Appealed from Cabarrus County District Court (William Hamby Jr., J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: The parties’ New York rental car agreement tried ...

Tagged with: Auto

Spruill v. Westfield Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-233-16, 15 pp.) (Donna Stroud, J.) Appealed from Currituck County Superior Court (J.C. Cole, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Although plaintiff was not physically occupying the insured vehicle, he was helping the ...

Tagged with: Auto

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-059-16, 21 pp.) (Niemeyer, J.) No. 15-1187, March 23, 2016; USDC at Baltimore, Md. (Bennett, J.) 4th Cir. Holding:  A company that purchased defaulted auto loans as part of an investment ...

Tagged with: Auto

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.

Tagged with: Arbitration Auto Insurance motion to compel UIM

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.

Tagged with: Arbitration Auto Insurance motion to compel UIM

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.

Tagged with: Auto Insurance UM

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.

Tagged with: Auto Civil Practice Insurance res judicata