 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Willis v. Allstate Insurance Co.8/2/2005
ractices Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the issue of unfair and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiff specifically argues that defendant is in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)f and h. We disagree.
To establish that defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, plaintiff must demonstrate "(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs." Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 352 N.C. 61, 68, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2003). Chapter 58 of our General Statutes enumerates acts and practices which are deemed unfair and deceptive in the insurance business. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15 (2003). Among those acts and practices provided in the statute are the following: "Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear[,]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)f; and " ttempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)h.
We conclude that Allstate had no obligation to settle plaintiff's claim under § 58-63-15(11)f due to the explicit terms of the policy, which, as discussed above, state that personal injury to the insured is not covered under the policy. Furthermore, Allstate had no obligation to settle plaintiff's claim under § 58-63-15(11)h because plaintiff could not have reasonably believed Mr. Willis was entitled to one million dollars of personalinjury coverage under the umbrella policy. As discussed above, personal injury to the insured is not covered by the policy's terms. Because this language is clearly provided in the umbrella policy, Allstate was not obligated to settle plaintiff's claim. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on this issue.
II.
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint after the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. We conclude that the trial court did not err.
After a responsive pleading is served "a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." N.C.R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a) (2003). "'The trial court's ruling on a motion to amend is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.'" Chrisalis Properties, Inc. v. Separate Quarters, Inc., 101 N.C. App. 81, 89, 398 S.E.2d 628, 633 (1990) (quoting Banner v. Banner, 86 N.C. App. 397, 400, 358 S.E.2d 110, 111 (1987)). In Chrisalis Properties, this Court held that where the plaintiff moved to amend its complaint after the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant, "amendment of the complaint is not allowed unless the judgment is set aside or vacated under Rule 59 or Rule 60." 101 N.C. App. at 89, 398 S.E.2d at 634. In the present case, plaintiff concedes that she moved to amend the complaint after the trial judge granted summary judgment for defendants. Our review of the transcript reveals that plaintiff did not move to set aside or vacate the judgment under Rule 59 or Rule 60. Under these circumstances, and pursuant to Chrisalis Properties, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint.
We have reviewed all of the assignments of error properly brought forth and for the reasons provided herein, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|