Stott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. COA06-1117.,COA06-1117. |
| Citation | 643 S.E.2d 653 |
| Parties | William Randall STOTT, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
E. Gregory, Stott, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
Larcade, Heiskell & Askew, PLLC, by Margaret P. Eagles and Christopher N. Heiskell, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee.
William Randall Stott ("plaintiff") appeals from order entered granting summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("defendant"). We affirm.
On 6 July 2002, plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Leslie Diane Rodda ("Rodda"). Defendant insured the vehicle Rodda was driving. Rodda's vehicle began to turn left into a private driveway. Richard Murry Roberts ("Roberts") was driving a vehicle traveling behind Rodda and plaintiff. Roberts failed to stop his vehicle and struck Rodda's vehicle in the rear.
Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Plaintiff gave notice of the loss to defendant. Defendant does not contest plaintiff was covered under Rodda's insurance policy. Plaintiff claimed $1,925.19 in medical reimbursement for his injuries. Defendant paid plaintiff the amount he demanded in full.
Several months later, plaintiff filed a claim for additional medical expense reimbursement for his injuries. Defendant denied plaintiff's second claim.
On 27 January 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive practices. On 4 April 2005, defendant answered and moved to compel arbitration. On 18 April 2005, plaintiff served a request for production of documents on defendant. On 31 May 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant to respond to his request for production of documents. On 1 August 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to add a third cause of action for exemplary damages.
On 5 August 2005, the trial court heard defendant's motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and allowed defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The trial court stayed further proceedings until the arbitration award was entered. The trial court ordered defendant to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests within thirty days after filing the arbitration award.
On 22 December 2005, plaintiff and defendant arbitrated the claims. Plaintiff submitted affidavits from two of his medical providers and copies of his medical bills. Defendant offered no evidence. On 3 January 2006, the arbitrators awarded plaintiff $2,028.00, the total amount of monetary damages he had demanded. Defendant paid the arbitration award and filed its response to plaintiff's discovery request on 2 February 2006.
On 6 February 2006, plaintiff filed motions to compel production of documents and to compel answers to interrogatories. Plaintiff alleged defendant objected to his request for all documents and failed to provide verified answers to all interrogatories, failed to provide complete answers to interrogatory numbered 5, and objected to ten interrogatories.
On 14 March 2006, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On 5 May 2006, the trial court entered an order allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a claim for exemplary damages and ordered defendant file an answer within thirty days. On 15 May 2006, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant on all issues and denied plaintiff's motion to compel. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by: (1) granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; (2) granting defendant's motion for summary judgment before defendant responded to his discovery request; and (3) failing to rule on plaintiff's motion to compel before the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff argues defendant's motion for summary judgment on his claims for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive practices should have been denied. We disagree.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.
A defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment by (1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff's case is non-existent, or (2) showing through discovery that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim, or (3) showing that the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense. Summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist.
Once the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial. To hold otherwise . . . would be to allow plaintiffs to rest on their pleadings, effectively neutralizing the useful and efficient procedural tool of summary judgment.
Draughon v. Harnett Cty. Bd. of Educ., 158 N.C.App. 208, 212, 580 S.E.2d 732, 735 (2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted), aff'd per curiam, 358 N.C. 131, 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004). We review an order allowing summary judgment de novo. Summey v. Barker, 357 N.C. 492, 496, 586 S.E.2d 247, 249 (2003).
"Whether or not the party's motion to compel discovery should be granted or denied is within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Wagoner v. Elkin City Schools' Bd. of Education, 113 N.C.App. 579, 585, 440 S.E.2d 119, 123, disc. rev. denied, 336 N.C. 615, 447 S.E.2d 414 (1994). A trial court's actions constitute an abuse of discretion "upon a showing that a court's actions `are manifestly unsupported by reason'" and "`so arbitrary that [they] could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.'" State v. T.D.R., 347 N.C. 489, 503, 495 S.E.2d 700, 708 (1998) (quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 832 (1985)).
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on his breach of contract claim.
The appellant bears the burden to show error in the trial court's ruling on appeal and how such alleged error prejudiced the appellant. Hollowell v. Norfolk & S.R.R., 153 N.C. 19, 21, 68 S.E. 894, 895 (1910). If the record on appeal fails to disclose the evidence relied on by the plaintiff to show error, the ruling of the lower court will be affirmed. Id.
For a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must show a valid contract existed, and a breach of its terms . . . . When examining whether an insurance policy is breached, we begin with the well-settled principle that an insurance policy is a contract and its provisions govern the rights and duties of the parties thereto. The insured party has the burden of bringing itself within the insuring language of the policy.
Nelson v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 630 S.E.2d 221, 229 (2006) (quotations and citations omitted).
The insurance contract contains the following arbitration clause:
The amount due under this coverage shall be decided by agreement between the insured and us. If there is no agreement, the amount due shall be decided by arbitration upon written request of the insured or us. Each party shall select a competent and impartial arbitrator. These two shall select a third one. If unable to agree on the third one within 30 days, either party may request a judge of a court of record in the county in which the arbitration is pending to select a third one. The written decision of any two arbitrators shall be binding on us, the insured, and any assignee of the insured and any person or organization with whom the insured expressly or impliedly contracts for the rendition of medical services. The arbitrators' decision shall be limited to whether or not the medical expenses were reasonable and the services were necessary, with the amount due being equal only to the reasonable expenses for necessary services. The arbitrators shall not award punitive damages or other noncompensatory damages.
The cost of the arbitrator and any expert witness shall be paid by the party who hired them. The cost of the third arbitrator and other expenses of arbitration shall be shared equally by both parties.
The arbitration shall take place in the county in which the insured resides unless the parties agree to another place. State court rules governing procedure and admission of evidence shall be used.
(Emphasis supplied). On 22 December 2005, the parties arbitrated plaintiff's additional claim for medical expenses. Plaintiff offered affidavits from two of his medical providers and copies of his medical bills. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff the total amount of his $2,028.00 claim.
Only awards reflecting mathematical errors, errors relating to form, and errors resulting from arbitrators['] exceeding their authority shall be modified or corrected by the reviewing courts. . . . If an arbitrator makes a mistake, either as to law or fact unless it is an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award . . . it is the misfortune of the party. . . . There is no right of appeal and the Court has no power to revise the decisions of "judges who are of the parties' own choosing." An award is intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dee
-
Waddell v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...704, 710 (2001). "A plaintiff bears the burden of proof on a claim of unfair and deceptive practice." Stott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 N.C. App. 46, 54, 643 S.E.2d 653, 658 (2007). To state a claim under the UDTPA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that "(1) [the] defendant committed ......
- Showalter v. Dept. of Crime Control
-
Griffith v. North Carolina Dep't of Correction
...The appellant bears the burden of showing how the trial court's alleged error prejudiced the appellant. Stott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 N.C.App. 46, 50, 643 S.E.2d 653, 656 (2007). Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate any way in which the trial court's actions in continuing the hearing......