{
  "id": 8525302,
  "name": "RUTH A. EURY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eury v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1993-03-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 9220SC170",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 N.C. App. 303"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "339 S.E.2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "446"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521469
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "459-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 S.E.2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4694724,
        4688358,
        4688327,
        4694514,
        4692506
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0116-02",
        "/nc/314/0116-05",
        "/nc/314/0116-01",
        "/nc/314/0116-04",
        "/nc/314/0116-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522802
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/73/0182-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 5939,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.205550207753425
    },
    "sha256": "406be08b9e4725cfa3be3c0284bede8e9f009d9e879ddea1bf6d49915717e164",
    "simhash": "1:ad5fced82db5bf4a",
    "word_count": 943
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:43:31.464788+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ORR and WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RUTH A. EURY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nPlaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for summary judgment and entering summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the specific terms of defendant\u2019s insurance policy do not exclude her from UIM coverage and that North Carolina\u2019s UM/UIM statutes provide her with UIM coverage.\nSummary judgment should be granted when a party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; Ipock v. Gilmore, 73 N.C. App. 182, 326 S.E.2d 271, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 116, 332 S.E.2d 481 (1985).\nWard v. Turcotte, 79 N.C. App. 458, 459-60, 339 S.E.2d 444, 446 (1986).\nPlaintiff argues that the language of Nationwide\u2019s insurance policy does not exclude her from coverage because \u201c[t]hat language can only be read as excluding from the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle [which includes an underinsured motor vehicle] those vehicles which are owned jointly by the named insured and the named insured\u2019s spouse.\u201d\nPlaintiff next argues that she is afforded coverage pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3). That statute provides, in part, \u201c[t]he term \u2018uninsured motor vehicle\u2019 shall not include: a. A motor vehicle owned by the named insured. . . .\u201d Plaintiff contends that because defendant\u2019s policy lists both her and her husband as the named insured, that the statutory exclusion from coverage would require a vehicle to be jointly owned by both her and her husband.\nWe are unable to discern, from the record before us, whether the vehicle in question is owned by the plaintiff individually, by Mr. Eury individually, by the plaintiff and Mr. Eury jointly, or by someone else. In this record there is no automobile certificate of title and no stipulation, admission or similar proof to establish who owns the vehicle in question. Assuming arguendo, that the plaintiff has asserted a viable claim, summary judgment is inappropriate because a material fact necessary to the plaintiff\u2019s claim remains in issue. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court\u2019s order of summary judgment and remand for appropriate proceedings below.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges ORR and WYNN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Foll\u00edn & James, by J. David James and Norman B. Smith, for the plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Baucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan, for the defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUTH A. EURY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 9220SC170\n(Filed 2 March 1993)\nInsurance \u00a7 1140 (NCI4th)\u2014 underinsured motorist coverage \u2014 ownership of vehicle \u2014 evidence insufficient to determine \u2014 summary judgment improper\nThe trial court erred by granting summary judgment for defendant in a declaratory judgment action to establish rights to underinsured motorist coverage where plaintiff was injured while riding in an automobile driven by her husband and insured by a policy issued by defendant to herself and her husband. Although plaintiff argues that the language of the policy does not exclude her from coverage because only those vehicles which are jointly owned by the named insured and the named insured\u2019s spouse are excluded from coverage, it could not be determined from the record whether the vehicle was owned by the plaintiff individually, by the plaintiff\u2019s husband (Mr. Eury) individually, by plaintiff and Mr. Eury jointly, or by someone else. Assuming that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, summary judgment is inappropriate because a material fact necessary to the plaintiff\u2019s claim remains in issue.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 322.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment filed 30 December 1991 by Judge William H. Helms in Union County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1993.\nOn 16 August 1990 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company issued to the plaintiff and her husband, Donald Eury, a personal automobile liability insurance policy. The policy provided coverage for four vehicles, including a 1983 Chevrolet pickup truck, with limits of $50,000 liability for bodily injury to one person and $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for bodily injury to one person.\nOn 7 October 1990 plaintiff was riding as a passenger in the 1983 Chevrolet truck driven by Mr. Eury and insured by Nationwide. Mr. Eury failed to stop and yield the right of way at a stop sign on rural road 1758 and collided with another car. Plaintiff alleged that she received \u201cextremely serious and permanent physical injuries\u201d in the accident which \u201cwould exhaust the limits of all of the coverages under the [Nationwide] policy. . . .\u201d At the time of the collision the premiums had been paid and the Nationwide policy was in full force and effect.\nPlaintiff demanded that Nationwide pay \u201cunderinsured motorist coverage to her in excess of the $50,000 limit for bodily injury liability coverage\u201d for her damages. Nationwide refused. Plaintiff then filed this declaratory judgment action to establish her rights to underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff has also filed suit against Mr. Eury to recover for her personal injuries. That action is pending in Union County Superior Court. On 9 September 1991 and 11 December 1991, respectively, Nationwide and plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment. On 20 December 1991 the trial court signed an order allowing summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The order provided in part:\n[T]he Court finds that the insurance policy issued by the Defendant does not provide underinsured motorist coverage to the Plaintiff in connection with the automobile accident of October 7, 1990 involving Plaintiff and her husband Donald E. Eury (currently the subject of a Union County Superior Court Civil action entitled Ruth A. Eury vs. Donald E. Eury, 91-CVS-631) and Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint in this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.\nFrom entry of summary judgment, plaintiff appeals.\nSmith, Foll\u00edn & James, by J. David James and Norman B. Smith, for the plaintiff-appellant.\nBaucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan, for the defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 334
}