Morrell v. Hardin Creek, Inc.

Citation821 S.E.2d 360,371 N.C. 672
Decision Date07 December 2018
Docket NumberNo. 318A17,318A17
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Parties Andrea MORRELL, G. Pony Boy Morrell, and The Pasta Wench, Inc. v. HARDIN CREEK, INC., John Sidney Greene, and Hardin Creek Timberframe and Millwork, Inc.

371 N.C. 672
821 S.E.2d 360

Andrea MORRELL, G. Pony Boy Morrell, and The Pasta Wench, Inc.
v.
HARDIN CREEK, INC., John Sidney Greene, and Hardin Creek Timberframe and Millwork, Inc.

No. 318A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 7, 2018


Capua Law Firm, P.A., by Paul A. Capua, Boone and Genevieve A. Mente, for plaintiff-appellees.

Wall Babcock LLP, Winston-Salem, by Joseph T. Carruthers and Lee D. Denton, for defendant-appellants.

MORGAN, Justice.

371 N.C. 673

This contract interpretation case concerns the operation of the provisions of a commercial real estate lease, specifically those terms regarding insurance and liability, when a lessee seeks damages allegedly caused by the lessor's negligence. The specific question before this Court is whether the pertinent provisions of the lease at issue serve as a complete bar to plaintiff lessees’ negligence-based

821 S.E.2d 362

claims against some or all of the named defendants, one of which is the lessor. The language of the lease arrangements indicates the clear intent of the parties to discharge each other from all claims and liabilities for damages resulting from hazards covered by insurance, and it is undisputed that the damages claimed by plaintiff lessees resulted from a hazard that was subject to their insurance coverage. Having elected to enter into the lease at issue here, plaintiff lessees are bound by the explicit terms of the contract and therefore are barred from bringing their claims against other

371 N.C. 674

parties to whom the lease applies. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that a critical paragraph in the lease is ambiguous and that, as a result, interpretation of the contract was a matter for a jury to resolve. We remand this matter for further proceedings as described below.

Factual and Procedural Background

Beginning in early 2011, defendant Hardin Creek, Inc. (Hardin Creek), a North Carolina company, began leasing commercial premises in Boone to plaintiff The Pasta Wench, Inc., a specialty pasta manufacturing and distribution business owned and operated by plaintiffs Andrea Morrell and her husband, G. Pony Boy Morrell (G. Morrell). The initial lease, dated 2 February 2011, covered the time period from February 2011 through February 2014, and defined "Landlord" as "Hardin Creek, Inc." and "Tenant" as "Andrea Morrell and G. Morrell (D.B.A.) The Pasta Wench, Inc." Defendant John Sidney Greene (S. Greene) signed the lease as President of Hardin Creek, and both Andrea and G. Morrell signed on behalf of themselves and The Pasta Wench. No other parties or third-party beneficiaries were named in or signed the lease.

The lease was a standard form lease prepared by Hardin Creek, and it included, inter alia , several provisions regarding insurance and liability. Relevant to the parties’ arguments in this case are portions of two paragraphs. Paragraph 5, titled "Alterations," discusses The Pasta Wench's right, as "Tenant," to alter or remodel the premises to suit its needs and further states in pertinent part:

371 N.C. 692
(b) Tenant's Neglect. Subject to the provisions set forth in the following sentence, Tenant shall pay for the cost of any repairs or damage resulting from the negligence or the wrongful acts of his employees, representatives or visitors. However, and notwithstanding any other provision of this lease to the contrary, Landlord and Tenant and all parties claiming under them agree and discharge each other from all claims and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by insurance on the leased premises, or covered by insurance in connection with the property owned or activities conducted on the leased premises, regardless of the cause of the damage or loss, provided that such cause does not prevent payment of insurance proceeds to Landlord under the provisions of the applicable policy.

Paragraph 8, titled "Insurance," provides in its entirety:

371 N.C. 675
Tenant shall maintain insurance in accordance with the provisions of sub[-]paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph, and Tenant shall indemnify Landlord in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (c).

(a) Property Insurance: Tenant shall hold Landlord harmless for loss or damage by fire with regard to all of Tenant's furniture, fixtures, and equipment about or within the leased premises.

(b) Liability Insurance: Tenant shall provide and keep in force for the protection of the general public and Landlord liability insurance against claims for bodily injury or death upon or near the leased premises and the sidewalks, streets and service and parking areas adjacent thereto to the extent of not less than $500,000.00 in respect to bodily injur[i]es or death to any one person and the extent of not less than $500,000.00 for bodily injuries or death to any number of persons arising out of one accident or disaster, and property damage with limits of not less than $100,000.00. The Tenant shall furnish Landlord with satisfactory evidence of such insurance within
821 S.E.2d 363
thirty (30) days of execution of this lease.

Despite the reference in the first sentence of Paragraph 8 to "sub-paragraph (c)," there is no subparagraph (c) in Paragraph 8.

In early 2012 an inspection by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) revealed the need for modifications to the interior layout of the premises to comply with pertinent state regulations governing The Pasta Wench's food production activities. Specifically, the inspection noted the need for the addition of an enclosed ceiling for the "open" kitchen that was being used by lessees Andrea and G. Morrell in their business. Lessees discussed the NCDA&CS requirements with S. Greene and his son, John Ellis Greene (E. Greene). Both S. and E. Greene are licensed general contractors, with the two of them having different business connections to the leased premises. E. Greene owned the building containing the premises that plaintiffs leased, as well as the real property on which the building sits. In addition to owning lessor Hardin Creek, S. Greene also owned and operated defendant Timberframe and Millwork, Inc. (Timberframe), a construction company in the business of building and remodeling residential and commercial buildings.

371 N.C. 676

After learning of the applicable regulatory requirements, Hardin Creek agreed to undertake the kitchen ceiling enclosure project in exchange for the Morrells’ promise to extend the term of the lease from February 2014 through December 2018. An "Amending Agreement" attached to the 2011 lease also imposed a series of rent increases, the first of which went into effect on 1 June 2012. However, the Amending Agreement specifically provided that "[a]ll other terms and conditions from the original lease ... will stay in effect." The parties do not dispute that the insurance and liability-related provisions of the 2011 lease quoted and discussed herein therefore remained in operation at all times relevant to this case.

The kitchen ceiling enclosure project was completed, but in their respective pleadings and depositions in the present case, the parties dispute who performed and supervised the renovation work. S. Greene denied that either he or Timberframe was involved and claimed that the Morrells themselves had supervised the project as the lessees. But, Adam Voss, an employee of Timberframe, testified that he performed the work while employed and being paid by Timberframe and at the direction of S. Greene. Voss also testified that all work on the ceiling project was conducted under the supervision of S. Greene and Timberframe alone. G. Morrell likewise testified that S. Greene had supervised and completed the project using Timberframe personnel.

The kitchen ceiling enclosure project was later discovered to have violated both general building codes and mechanical codes for fire sprinkler systems. The flawed nature of the work to enclose the ceiling of the kitchen was discovered after the mountain municipality of Boone experienced extremely low temperatures in January 2014, causing the fire sprinkler pipes on the leased premises to burst, to flood the Morrells’ leased business space, and to destroy the lessees’ inventory, ingredients, and specialty equipment. As the lessees, the Morrells claimed that these losses prevented The Pasta Wench from filling pending orders and that they halted new sales. Although the lessees had obtained insurance on the premises that covered the hazard of flooding, nevertheless the benefit limits of the policy that they purchased were insufficient to cover their alleged losses such that The Pasta Wench went out of business.

On 3 December 2014, plaintiff lessees filed an action in Superior Court, Watauga County, alleging negligence and breach of the duty of workmanlike performance against Hardin Creek, S. Greene, and Timberframe; constructive eviction and breach of contract against Hardin Creek; and unfair trade practices against S. Greene and Hardin

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Political Action Comm. (EMPAC)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • February 5, 2021
    ...... reviewed the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 ... non-movant, drawing all inferences in the non-movant's favor." Morrell v. Hardin Creek, Inc. , 371 N.C. 672, 680, 821 S.E.2d 360 (2018). "We ......
  • Crescent University City Venture, LLC v. AP Atlantic, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Courts of Law and Equity of North Carolina
    • August 8, 2019
    ...against these parties, the Court shall sua sponte dismiss those claims for the reasons stated herein. See Morrell v. Hardin Creek, Inc., 371 N.C. 672, 687-88, 821 S.E.2d 360, 370 (2018) (upholding trial court's decision to sua sponte grant summary judgment where the basis for granting a mot......
  • Eastpointe Human Servs. v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • July 5, 2022
    ...evidence, or the consideration of disputed fact, the intention of the parties is a question of law."); see Morrell v. Hardin Creek, Inc., 371 N.C. 672, 691, 821 S.E.2d 360, 372 (2018) (Beasley, J., dissenting). ¶ 28 Here, the intent of the parties was clearly conveyed through the language o......
  • Aym Technologies, LLC v. Rodgers
    • United States
    • Superior Courts of Law and Equity of North Carolina
    • October 16, 2019
    ...... judgment. See Hyde Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing. Corp. , 26 N.C.App. 138, 142, 215 S.E.2d 162, 164-65. ... party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.". Morrel v. Hardin Creek, Inc. , 371 N.C. 672, 680, 821. S.E.2d 360, 366 (2018) (quoting ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT