On January 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals held that a Town was not liable for the actions of its police officer in speeding, which caused the death of another motorist. In this case, the officer was following a car, suspected of emitting an odor of marijuana.
In Allmond v. Goodnight the Court of Appeals (on 11/19/2013; unpublished) held that a motorist's claim against a trooper in his individual capacity could proceed.
In Economy Premier Assurance Company V. Mitchell, decided in the Western District Of North Carolina on May 29, 2013, the court addressed an exclusion for the insured's "business." The insured had a homeowners policy. While she was watching (babysitting) a child, the child became injured. A claim was made against her, and the issue was whether the liability portion of the HO policy provided coverage.
Natiownide v. Frye, Holt | Insurance Coverage for Acts of Child Abuse | Definition of Insured | Co-insured exclusion
In Natiownide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Frye (MDNC Dec. 2, 2013), the federal court addressed coverage for a child who was injured by an insured in a home, under a homeowners insurance policy. The case raised an issue as to an exclusion for a "co-insured," which stated that that the policy excluded bodily injury cuased by one insured against another insured.
In an unpublished case decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 5, 2013, the Court held that a named insured cannot recover under the liability portion of a homeowners policy. In this case, the insured-wife was specifically named on the policy as an insured.
Mosely v. Balboa Insurance | Lender Placed (forced placed) Insurance | Homeowner's right to sue insurer absent privity
In Mosely v. Balboa Insurance (WDNC, November 5, 2013), the federal court addressed whether a homeowner can sue the insurer for breach of contract and damages arising from damage to the home, where the policy was issued to a lender, as a "lender placed" policy.
In Burch v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co. (November 19, 2013; EDNC), the Court addressed the insured's misrepresentations in a homeowners policy of insurance. In this case, the insured filled out an application for homeowners (HO) insurance, for a home they purchased.
In a recent case, a federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina rejected a claim for emotional distress. In this case, the plaintiff had a contract with Orkin for termite inspections.
In a case decided on July 3, 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in Patel v. Scottsdale Insurance, held that the parties to the insurance policy were required to proceed with the appraisal provision in the insurance policy.
In Guessford v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, the federal court in Greensboro (on January 16, 2013) denied a motion to dismiss a claim for bad faith and unfair and deceptive acts against an insurance company.