BLOG

In Metts v. Parkinson the Court of Appeals (on 4/1/2014; unpublished) addressed whether the trial court can award the plaintiff legal fees under 6-21.1 in the amount of one-third of the jury's award. In this case, the Plaintiff recovered a verdict of approximately $6,000 against the defendant, in a case for personal injuries.

On December 18, 2012, the Court of Appeals held that a detainee could not sue an assistant jailor for negligence, because the assistant jailor was protected by official immunity.

In Johnson v. American United Life Ins. Co. (4th Circuit, May 24, 2013), the Fourth Circuit addressed coverage under a life insurance policy where the insured died in a car crash while intoxicated. The lower court held that this was not an "accident" and that his death was not covered. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that this was an "accident."

In N.C. Farm Bureau Insurance v. Cully's Motorcross, from June 13, 2013, the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified one aspect of North Carolina's law pertaining to claims for malicious prosecution.

In Mathis v. Dowling , decided on November 5, 2013, the plaintiff was the CEO and Executive Director of a Council in Haywood County that provided relief to flood victims.

In Peek v. Watson the Court of Appeals (on 3/18/2014; unpublished) affirmed a verdict of $20,000 against two persons who caused criminal charges to be brought against the plaintiff.

In Livingston v. Bakewell, North Carolina State Bar the Court of Appeals (on 2/4/2014; unpublished) addressed a case dismissing (12(b)(6)) claims for malicious prosecution.

A person who purchases a business from another person often enters a "non-compete" agreement with the seller, which prohibits the seller from competing with the buyer. (These non-compete agreements are also used to prevent employees from competing with their employer. The law of trade secrets is also implicated here.) These agreements are enforceable if they are reasonable, which requires a fact-specific inquiry.

In Mitsui Sumotomo Insurance v. Duke University Health System, decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 11, 2013, the court addressed the issue of whether a claim involved one or multiple occurrences.

In Quackenbush v. Steelman, decided on November 5, 2013, (unpublished) the Court of Appeals addressed whether defendant, sued for criminal conversation alienation of affections, was subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina.