Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Authority v. First of Georgia Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG,No. 21PA94,21PA94 |
| Citation | 455 S.E.2d 655,340 N.C. 88 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas Medical Center v. FIRST OF GEORGIA INSURANCE COMPANY, T.M. Mayfield & Company, Matthew Fultz, Tammi Baughn and Mark Baughn. |
Turner, Enochs & Lloyd, P.A. by Wendell H. Ott, Thomas E. Cone and Laurie S. Truesdell, Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellant.
Howard M. Widis, Charlotte, for defendant-appellees First of Georgia Ins. Co., T.M. Mayfield & Co., and Matthew Fultz.
The first question posed by this appeal is whether the plaintiff may enforce liens for money due for medical services rendered to persons for injuries incurred in an automobile accident. The liens the plaintiff is seeking to enforce are against money held by an insurance company and its agents for the settlement of claims for the liability of a third person arising from the accident.
The resolution of this question depends on the interpretation of the following two sections of the General Statutes. N.C.G.S. § 44-49 provides in part:
From and after March 26, 1935, there is hereby created a lien upon any sums recovered as damages for personal injury in any civil action in this State, the said lien in favor of any person, corporation, municipal corporation or county to whom the person so recovering, or the person in whose behalf the recovery has been made, may be indebted for drugs, medical supplies, ambulance services, and medical services rendered by any physician, dentist, trained nurse, or hospitalization, or hospital attention and/or services rendered in connection with the injury in compensation for which the said damages have been recovered.
N.C.G.S. § 44-49 (1991). N.C.G.S. § 44-50 provides in part:
Such a lien as provided for in G.S. 44-49 shall also attach upon all funds paid to any person in compensation for or settlement of the said injuries, whether in litigation or otherwise; and it shall be the duty of any person receiving the same before disbursement thereof to retain out of any recovery or any compensation so received a sufficient amount to pay the just and bona fide claims for such drugs, medical supplies, ambulance service and medical attention and/or hospital service, after having received and accepted notice thereof.
N.C.G.S. § 49-50 (1991). The defendants, relying on the language of N.C.G.S. § 44-50 that the lien attaches "upon all funds paid to any person," argue that the lien did not attach until the Baughns were paid, at which time the defendants were not holding any money which was subject to the lien. We believe N.C.G.S. § 44-50 must be read in conjunction with N.C.G.S. § 44-49. N.C.G.S. § 44-50 provides that "[s]uch a lien as provided for in G.S. 44-49 shall also attach upon all funds paid to any person." A lien for which N.C.G.S. § 44-49 provides attaches when there is a recovery of damages. This would be before any money is paid. If the plaintiff under N.C.G.S. § 44-50 is to have a lien "[s]uch ... as provided for in G.S. § 44-49" the lien should attach before the insurance company makes its payments and when the parties agree upon a settlement. This being so, the plaintiff may enforce the lien against the money which is payable for the personal injury.
The defendants argue and the Court of Appeals held that language in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Keith, 283 N.C. 577, 582, 196 S.E.2d 731, 735 (1973), which says that N.C.G.S. § 44-49 and N.C.G.S. § 44-50 impose no obligation upon the tort-feasor means the sections impose no obligation on the tort-feasor's insurance carrier. Keith did not involve an interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 44-49 or N.C.G.S. § 44-50. It was an interpleader action by an insurance company to determine which of two parties was entitled to the proceeds of an insurance policy. Any statement we made as to the obligation of a tort-feasor was dictum. More importantly, we do not believe the General Assembly in enacting this statute would have necessarily made no distinction between the tort-feasor, who normally does not pay the claim, and the insurance company, which normally does pay the claim. Keith is not precedent for this case.
The Court of Appeals also held that the assignment to the plaintiff of the proceeds payable by First of Georgia up to the amount of Mark Baughn's bill for medical services was void. The Court of Appeals relied on its opinion in N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Mitchell, 88 N.C.App. 263, 362 S.E.2d 841 (1987), aff'd on other grounds, 323 N.C. 528, 374 S.E.2d 844 (1988), which held that the assignment of the proceeds of a claim for personal injury is void for being against public policy.
There is a distinction between the assignment of a claim for personal injury and the assignment of the proceeds of such a claim. The assignment of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Southeastern Eye Center-Pending Matters
... ... issue[.]" Hyde Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing ... Corp. , 26 ... parties' deal ... 21 ... First, Plaintiffs allege that Doug Harris, as trustee ... two motives." Battleground Veterinary Hosp., P.C. v ... McGeough , 2007 NCBC LEXIS 33, at ... to the Court that it believed it had no authority ... to file the Confession of Judgment due to ... lawsuit, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. First of ... Ga. Ins. Co. , 340 ... ...
-
Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLC
... ... 7 ... We first note the standard of review we apply to this ... In Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 259, 267-68, 757 A.2d 526 ... , 262 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1965) ; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. First of Georgia Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Elrod v. WakeMed
... ... enumerated paragraphs, beginning with the first five as follows: (Compl. Ex. 2 (DE 65-3) at 1) ... in our constitutional guaranties." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. , 269 N.C. 341, ... Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. First of Georgia Ins. Co. , 340 ... ...
-
Del Webb Communities Inc. v. Partington
... ... as representatives or agents under the authority of Del Webb ... We conclude that the general ... Mojave first contends that Chapter 645D applies only to ... Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 916 F.2d 731, 744 (1st Cir.1990) ... See CharlotteMecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 340 N.C. 88, ... ...
-
Other People's Money: the Ethics of Litigation Funding - Douglas R. Richmond
...(Ohio 2003); McKellips v. Mackintosh, 475 N.W.2d 926, 929 (S.D. 1991). 27. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 455 S.E.2d 655, 657 (N.C. \995);Rancman, 789 N.E.2d at 221; McKellips, 475 N.W.2d at 929. 28. See Sneed, 735 So. 2d at 315 ("If we had determined the agreem......
-
Making champerty work: an invitation to state action.
...The assignment of the proceeds of a claim does not give the assignee control of the case and there is no reason it should not be valid." 455 S.E.2d 655, 657 (N.C. 1995) (citation North Dakota. Interstate Collection Agency v. Kuntz: "'While the authorities differ as to all the ingredients es......