{
  "id": 8522276,
  "name": "GABRIELLA MURRAY HIEB and ROBERT NELSON HIEB, Plaintiffs v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hieb v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1993-11-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 9226SC1122",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 502"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "434 S.E.2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520040
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 497",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2555126
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 S.E.2d 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. App. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526349
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/100/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "396 S.E.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.C. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2496109,
        2499343,
        2497841,
        2493556,
        2494197
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/327/0484-05",
        "/nc/327/0484-04",
        "/nc/327/0484-02",
        "/nc/327/0484-03",
        "/nc/327/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 647",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521334
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 S.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523467
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0669-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(e)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 S.E.2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2492089,
        2492692,
        2488557
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0277-02",
        "/nc/325/0277-01",
        "/nc/325/0277-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "379 S.E.2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2486785
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 S.E.2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522616
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0139-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 451,
    "char_count": 11322,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.016175644050232e-07,
      "percentile": 0.744817361938862
    },
    "sha256": "1c6d757aa4820bcceae13ba5619790dc7b4d32a9bbd637b93953f2755736f38b",
    "simhash": "1:61654cfaed88e694",
    "word_count": 1805
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:17.524906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GABRIELLA MURRAY HIEB and ROBERT NELSON HIEB, Plaintiffs v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nPlaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Hartford permitting Hartford to reduce the limits of its UIM coverage by any amounts paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb or on her behalf by St. Paul as workers\u2019 compensation benefits. We agree.\nWhen a motion for summary judgment is granted, the questions for determination on appeal are whether, on the basis of the materials presented at trial, there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Smith, 65 N.C. App. 139, 308 S.E.2d 504 (1983).\nIn Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513, 379 S.E.2d 854, reh\u2019g denied, 325 N.C. 277, 384 S.E.2d 517 (1989), the plaintiff\u2019s employer purchased a business auto insurance policy, which provided UIM coverage, from North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. Plaintiff\u2019s employer also purchased workers\u2019 compensation insurance from North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. The insurance policy in Manning provided: \u201cAny amount payable under the insurance policy would be reduced by: a. All sums paid or payable under any workers\u2019 compensation, disability benefits or similar law exclusive of non-occupational disability benefits.\u201d Manning, supra. Our Supreme Court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(e) permits an insurance carrier to reduce the UIM coverage liability in a business auto insurance policy by amounts paid to the insured as workers\u2019 compensation benefits. Accord Brantley v. Starling, 111 N.C. App. 669, 433 S.E.2d 1 (1993).\nIn Ohio Casualty Group v. Owens, 99 N.C. App. 131, 392 S.E.2d 647, rev. denied, 327 N.C. 484, 396 S.E.2d 614 (1990), defendant was injured in an automobile accident during the course and scope of her employment. Defendant\u2019s employer purchased workers\u2019 compensation insurance from Amerisure Insurance Companies. Defendant purchased automobile liability insurance, which included UIM coverage to a maximum of $50,000, from plaintiff. Defendant received $20,392.70 in workers\u2019 compensation insurance and $25,000 from the tortfeasor\u2019s liability insurer. Plaintiff argued that it was entitled to reduce its $50,000 limit in UIM coverage by the $20,392.70 in workers\u2019 compensation benefits. This Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to reduce its UIM coverage by the workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid to defendant. We distinguished Manning based on the fact that defendant, not her employer, purchased the UIM coverage. We concluded that defendant would not recover twice because she purchased her own UIM coverage and because Amerisure was entitled to a lien on the insurance proceeds provided by plaintiff under the UIM coverage for $20,392.70.\nIn Sproles v. Greene, 100 N.C. App. 96, 394 S.E.2d 691 (1990), aff\u2019d in part and rev\u2019d in part, 329 N.C. 603, 407 S.E.2d 497 (1991), this Court refused to allow the UIM insurer to reduce the limits of its coverage by the workers\u2019 compensation payments received by plaintiff. In Sproles, Mrs. Sproles was injured in an automobile accident during the course and scope of her employment. Mrs. Sproles obtained and paid for UIM coverage from United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. The workers\u2019 compensation insurance, provided by Mrs. Sproles\u2019 employer, was issued by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. This Court distinguished Manning based on the following facts: (1) the UIM insurance policy was not a \u201cBusiness Auto Policy\u201d but a \u201cPersonal Auto Policy;\u201d (2) the workers\u2019 compensation insurance was not provided by the UIM insurer or its affiliate; and (3) Mrs. Sproles\u2019 damages exceeded the available insurance.\nThe forecast of evidence in the case sub judice discloses that the automobile driven by Mrs. Hieb at the time of the collision was owned by North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow, a nonprofit corporation founded by Mrs. Hieb with a grant from the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation. Mrs. Hieb was the Executive Director of North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow and was its only employee. She received no compensation for her work at North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow. Mrs. Hieb was also employed as Director of Public Affairs and Community Resources at Howell\u2019s Child Care Center, earning approximately $28,000 per year. North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow is unaffiliated with Howell\u2019s Child Care Center. St. Paul is the workers\u2019 compensation insurer for Howell\u2019s Child Care Center. The named insured of the insurance policy issued by Hartford, the UIM insurer, is North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow. In her affidavit, Mrs. Hieb stated that the insurance premiums on the Hartford policy were paid from contributions, a grant from the Kennedy Foundation, and, when the contributions and grants were insufficient, by her personally. The insurance policy is denominated a \u201cBusiness Auto Policy\u201d and provides: \u201cAny amount payable under this coverage shall be reduced by: a. All sums paid or payable under any workers\u2019 compensation, disability benefits or similar law exclusive of non-occupational disability benefits.\u201d Mrs. Hieb received a judgment against Lowery, whose liability coverage was only $25,000, for $1,279,000. The Hartford policy provided UIM coverage for Mrs. Hieb in the amount of $500,000.\nWe find Owens and Sproles to be the controlling law in this case and hold that Hartford is not entitled to reduce its $500,000 limit in UIM coverage by the workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb by St. Paul. Owens and Sproles, and not Manning, are controlling because: (1) the UIM insurance and the workers\u2019 compensation insurance were provided by separate and unaffiliated companies; (2) Mrs. Hieb was, in effect, the alter ego of North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow, which makes the insurance policy provided by Hartford resemble more closely the policies in Owens and Sproles, although the policy in this case was denominated a \u201cBusiness Insurance Policy;\u201d and (3) Mrs. Hieb has received a judgment in an amount in excess of the policy limits provided by Hartford. The public policies inherent in \u00a7 20-279.21(e) support our holding. First, since North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow is unaffiliated with Howell\u2019s Child Care Center and none of the premiums on the Hartford policy were paid by Howell\u2019s Child Care Center, one employer does not bear the burden of paying double premiums. Second, Mrs. Hieb will not recover twice for the same injury since, based on our holding below, St. Paul is entitled to a lien against all amounts paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb by Hartford pursuant to its UIM coverage.\nPlaintiffs argue in their second assignment of error that the trial court erred when it determined that St. Paul was entitled to a workers\u2019 compensation lien against all amounts paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb by Hartford pursuant to its UIM coverage. We cannot agree.\nIn light of this Court\u2019s holding in Ohio Casualty Group v. Owens, supra, and Bailey v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 47, 434 S.E.2d 625 (1993) that\nN.C. General Statute Section 97-10.2 provides for the subrogation of the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier ... to the employer\u2019s right, upon reimbursement of the employee, to any payment, including uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance proceeds, made to the employee by or on behalf of a third party as a result of the employee\u2019s injury,\nplaintiffs\u2019 second assignment of error is overruled. St. Paul is entitled to a workers\u2019 compensation lien against all amounts paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb by Hartford pursuant to its UIM coverage.\nThe order of the trial court granting defendant Hartford\u2019s motion for summary judgment is reversed, and the order granting defendant St. Paul\u2019s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.\nThe order of the trial court is\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Monnett, Berry & Roberts, by Charles G. Monnett III, for plaintiffs-appellants.",
      "Dean & Gibson, by Rodney Dean, for defendant-appellee St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.",
      "Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Edward L. Eatman, Jr., John F. Morris, and Kent C. Ford, for defendant-appellee Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GABRIELLA MURRAY HIEB and ROBERT NELSON HIEB, Plaintiffs v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants\nNo. 9226SC1122\n(Filed 2 November 1993)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 530 (NCI4th)\u2014 UIM coverage \u2014 no reduction allowed for amount of workers\u2019 compensation benefits\nDefendant Hartford Insurance Company was not entitled to reduce its $500,000 limit in UIM coverage by the workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid or to be paid to plaintiff by defendant St. Paul Insurance Company, since the UIM insurance and the workers\u2019 compensation insurance were provided by separate and unaffiliated companies; plaintiff was, in effect, the alter ego of North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow which purchased the UIM coverage, thus making the Hartford policy more closely resemble a personal automobile liability insurance policy rather than a business insurance policy, as it was denominated; and plaintiff received a judgment in an amount in excess of the policy limits provided by Hartford.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 293 et seq.\n2. Insurance \u00a7 530 (NCI4th)\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation carrier \u2014 entitlement to lien against funds paid by UIM carrier\nDefendant St. Paul Insurance Company was entitled to a workers\u2019 compensation lien against all amounts paid or to be paid to plaintiff by defendant Hartford Insurance Company pursuant to its UIM coverage.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 293 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from an order entered 28 August 1992 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court by Judge Robert P. Johnston granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 October 1993.\nOn 17 October 1989, plaintiff, Gabriella Murray Hieb, while driving to New Bern, North Carolina in the course and scope of her employment with Howell\u2019s Child Care Center, suffered personal injuries as a result of a collision with a vehicle driven by Woodrow Lowery (Lowery). Mrs. Hieb has received workers\u2019 compensation benefits from defendant St. Paul and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier for Howell\u2019s Child Care Center.\nThe vehicle driven by Mrs. Hieb was owned by a nonprofit corporation, North Carolina Let\u2019s Play to Grow, and insured by defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford) with liability and underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage in the amount of $500,000.\nThe vehicle driven by Lowery was insured by Integon Indemnity Company (Integon) with liability coverage limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Integon has tendered its policy limits of $25,000 to plaintiff. Mrs. Hieb filed suit against Lowery, and a jury returned a verdict in her favor in the amount of $1,279,000. Mrs. Hieb and St. Paul agreed that the $25,000 tendered by Integon will be applied to St. Paul\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation lien authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2.\nPlaintiffs then filed this suit seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights of Mrs. Hieb to the proceeds from the UIM policy issued by defendant Hartford. On 28 August 1992, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.\nMonnett, Berry & Roberts, by Charles G. Monnett III, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nDean & Gibson, by Rodney Dean, for defendant-appellee St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.\nHedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Edward L. Eatman, Jr., John F. Morris, and Kent C. Ford, for defendant-appellee Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 532,
  "last_page_order": 537
}