Miller v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 501P93,501P93 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marcus D. MILLER v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Paul D. Coates, ToNola D. Brown, Greensboro, for Nationwide.
Michael Doran, Salisbury, for Miller.
Prior report: 112 N.C.App. 295, 435 S.E.2d 537.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 1994."
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Morris v. Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community, Inc., No. COA 05-1652 (N.C. App. 10/17/2006), COA 05-1652
... ... v. Miller, 73 N.C. App. 295, 297, 326 S.E.2d 316, 319 (1985) (citing West v. Slick, ... Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 295, 301, 435 S.E.2d 537, 542 (1993), disc ... ...
-
Estate of Dalenko v. Monroe, No. COA08-844 (N.C. App. 5/19/2009)
...(2001) (quoting Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 295, 300, 435 S.E.2d 537, 541 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994)). "The trial court may grant this motion if `there is a want of law to support a claim of the sort made, an absence of facts suf......
-
McDowell v. Forsyth Motosports, LLC, No. COA06-1360 (N.C. App. 7/3/2007)
...to consumers." Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 295, 301, 435 S.E.2d 537, 542 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994). "The determination as to whether an act is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court." Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647......
-
Le Rmah v. United Statesa Cas. Ins. Co.
...v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 112 N.C. App. 295, 302, 435 S.E.2d 537, 542 (1993) (citation omitted), disc. review denied , 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994).Once again, however, Rmah's argument is foreclosed based on a lack of privity. This Court has held that where a "plaintiff is neithe......
Request a trial to view additional results