Beaver v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 12 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 242PA92,242PA92 |
| Citation | 333 N.C. 455,427 S.E.2d 317 |
| Parties | Grady Lee BEAVER and wife, Nancy Beaver v. Larry P. HAMPTON and Larry O. Hampton. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 106 N.C.App. 172, 416 S.E.2d 8 (1992), affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part a judgment for plaintiff Grady Beaver entered by Mills, J., in Superior Court, Iredell County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 February 1993.
Pressly & Thomas by Edwin A. Pressly, Statesville, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Nichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle by Richard L. Pinto and Matthew L. Mason, Greensboro, for unnamed defendant-appellant Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
Plaintiff Grady Beaver was awarded damages in the sum of $30,000 for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of defendant Larry P. Hampton while operating a vehicle owned by defendant Larry O. Hampton with the permission of the owner. The trial court allowed defendants' liability carrier to pay $25,000, the limits of defendants' liability policy, into the office of the Clerk of Superior Court, and ordered that the liability carrier was relieved of any further duty to provide a defense for defendants or to pay any additional damages. From the jury award of $30,000 the trial court deducted $25,000, the amount previously paid by defendants' liability carrier. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest only on the remaining $5,000.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Beaver v. Hampton, 106 N.C.App. 172, 416 S.E.2d 8 (1992). On 18 November 1992 we allowed discretionary review. We now review two issues arising from plaintiffs' appeal to the Court of Appeals.
First, the Court of Appeals denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal pursuant to N.C.R.App.P. 3, holding that notice served on the attorney for plaintiffs' underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) carrier was timely and sufficient. On this issue, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
Second, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on $30,000, the full amount of the judgment. We agree with the Court of Appeals regarding plaintiffs' entitlement to prejudgment interest on the entire judgment, and on that point we also affirm.
We vacate the portion of that court's decision, however, which remanded the case to the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conaway
... ... See State v. Wilson, ... Page 846 ... 289 N.C. 531, 537, 223 S.E.2d 311, 315 (1976); Beaver v. Hampton, 106 N.C.App. 172, 176, 416 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1992), affirmed in part on other grounds and vacated in part on other grounds, 333 N.C. 455, 427 ... ...
-
State v. Hayes, COA97-697.
...(1976); Beaver v. Hampton, 106 N.C.App. 172, 176-77, 416 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1992), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 333 N.C. 455, 427 S.E.2d 317 (1993). Read in the context of the facts presented in these cases, our courts have held that the denial of a motion in limine is not su......
-
Heatherly v. Industrial Health Council
...review allowed, 332 N.C. 664, 424 S.E.2d 398 (1992), aff'd in part on other grounds and vacated in part on other grounds, 333 N.C. 455, 427 S.E.2d 317 (1993). Most recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing "[a] motion in limine is insufficient to preserve for a......
-
State v. McClary, COA02-504.
...and the trial judge did not conduct a full hearing of evidentiary matters underlying the motion), modified on other grounds, 333 N.C. 455, 427 S.E.2d 317 (1993). If defendant fails to object to the evidence at the time it is offered or otherwise to preserve the question for appeal, our revi......