{
  "id": 11914768,
  "name": "NED W. GODWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Godwin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1995-06-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 9411SC699",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "307",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 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": "442 S.E.2d 513",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2528484,
        2526501,
        2531143,
        2528202,
        2528152
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0768-02",
        "/nc/335/0768-03",
        "/nc/335/0768-04",
        "/nc/335/0768-05",
        "/nc/335/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "437 S.E.2d 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521758
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "434 S.E.2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519967
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 698",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2551106,
        2552579,
        2550385,
        2552753,
        2550655
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0698-02",
        "/nc/337/0698-01",
        "/nc/337/0698-05",
        "/nc/337/0698-03",
        "/nc/337/0698-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "443 S.E.2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527953
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0701-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 802",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2552643,
        2552388,
        2552777,
        2549330,
        2551866
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0802-05",
        "/nc/337/0802-03",
        "/nc/337/0802-04",
        "/nc/337/0802-02",
        "/nc/337/0802-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "669"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12125974
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "202"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 597",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Baxley II"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 718",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12140204
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Baxley II"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0718-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "616"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Baxley II"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522456
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Baxley II"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "430 S.E.2d 895",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "901"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2531661
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 8084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7490473382811121
    },
    "sha256": "0204347a61fba70c00f8eb157dcee0210885927a4043ffeb1b5b9c1bb56ec300",
    "simhash": "1:137230a88d660250",
    "word_count": 1282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:59.579385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NED W. GODWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns error to the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law that plaintiff is not entitled to recover prejudgment interest on (1) his property damage verdict, and (2) his personal injury verdict. We note initially that the trial court found that plaintiff failed to include in his complaint for declaratory relief a claim that he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the property damage portion of the verdict, and thus, summarily concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to recover any additional amount on the property damage verdict. We disagree with the court\u2019s finding. Although he specifically stated in his complaint that defendant refused to pay \u201cthe $6,000.00 for the property damage and interest thereon from June 6, 1990 [the date of the judgment] through February 12, 1991 [the date Nationwide paid the difference between the earlier collision payment and the property damage verdict],\u201d plaintiff nevertheless demanded in the same paragraph prejudgment interest on the entire $70,000 judgment. Therefore, as defense counsel conceded at oral argument, the question presented for appellate review is whether plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on the personal injury and property damage judgments.\nOur Supreme Court has held that an underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier is obligated to pay prejudgment interest on a judgment rendered in the underlying tort action up to, but not in excess of its UIM policy limits. Baxley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 334 N.C. 1, 430 S.E.2d 895 (1993). In the present case, however, plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest on the personal injury verdict in addition to its UM policy limit, $25,000, which has already been exhausted. The issue of whether a claimant is entitled to prejudgment interest in an amount exceeding the insurer\u2019s limit of liability has been addressed by this Court most recently in Watlington v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 116 N.C. App. 110, 446 S.E.2d 614 (1994). In Watlington we held that \u201ccourts must look to the actual language in each insurance policy at issue to determine whether the insurance company is obligated to pay prejudgment interest in excess of its contractual limit of liability.\u201d Id. at 112, 446 S.E.2d at 616.\nThe Nationwide policy contained the following relevant UM provision:\nPART D - Uninsured Motorists Coverage\nWe will pay damages which a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of:\n1. Bodily injury sustained by a covered person and caused by an accident; and\n2. Property damage caused by an accident.\nLIMIT OF LIABILITY\nThe limit of bodily injury liability shown in the Declarations for \u201ceach person\u201d for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one auto accident. . . .\nOur appellate courts have continuously interpreted the term \u201cdamages\u201d in similar provisions to include prejudgment interest as an element only \u201cup to, but not in excess of, its ... policy limits.\u201d Baxley, 334 N.C. at 11, 430 S.E.2d at 901; see Watlington, 116 N.C. App. 110, 446 S.E.2d 614; Baxley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 115 N.C. App. 718, 446 S.E.2d 597 (1994) (Baxley II); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 115 N.C. App. 193, 444 S.E.2d 664, review allowed, 337 N.C. 802, 449 S.E.2d 748 (1994); United Services Automobile Assn. v. Gambino, 114 N.C. App. 701, 443 S.E.2d 368, disc. review denied, 337 N.C. 698, 448 S.E.2d 539 (1994); Wiggins v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 26, 434 S.E.2d 642 (1993). We see no reason to distinguish this UM case from any UIM or liability case which has refused to order prejudgment interest once the policy limits have been exhausted. See Cochran v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 113 N.C. App. 260, 437 S.E.2d 910, disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 768, 442 S.E.2d 513 (1994).\nBoth parties made commendable arguments but, we are bound by former holdings. Plaintiff articulates sound policy arguments to support his position, but \u201cpolicy alone is not sufficient to overcome the plain and unambiguous language of the policy.\u201d Mabe, 115 N.C. App. at 202, 444 S.E.2d at 669. Therefore, we hold that Nationwide is obligated to pay prejudgment interest as part of the damages up to its UM coverage limit of $25,000. In this case, because the judgment exceeds the policy\u2019s limit of liability, $25,000 (plus the postjudgment interest) is the extent of Nationwide\u2019s liability, and plaintiff is not entitled to any prejudgment interest on the personal injury portion of the judgment. However, plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on the property damage verdict (less the 18 March 1988 payment) up to the policy limit because the policy limit on property damages was $10,000, and plaintiff\u2019s claim did not exceed this amount.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment as to prejudgment interest on the personal injury verdict, but we reverse that portion of the judgment denying plaintiff prejudgment interest on the property damage verdict and remand for the entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part.\nJudges WYNN and JOHN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mast, Morris, Schulz & Mast, P.A., by George B. Mast and Bradley N. Schulz, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Ragsdale, Liggett & Foley, by Stephanie Hutchins Autry, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NED W. GODWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee\nNo. 9411SC699\n(Filed 20 June 1995)\nInsurance \u00a7 690 (NCI4th)\u2014 UM coverage \u2014 prejudgment interest \u2014 award up to policy limits\nBecause a judgment for personal injury exceeded the UM limit of liability in the policy issued by defendant, plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the personal injury portion of the judgment; however, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on the property damage verdict up to the policy limit because the verdict did not exceed this amount.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 428.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 29 March 1994 by Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 March 1995.\nPlaintiff was injured in an automobile collision with Melissa Maud Leroy on 18 August 1987. At the time of the collision, Leroy had no insurance coverage. Plaintiff was the husband of and resided with Bettie W. Godwin, who was insured by defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter \u201cNationwide\u201d). Plaintiff was a covered person under Nationwide\u2019s policy (hereinafter \u201cthe policy\u201d).\nPursuant to plaintiffs insurance policy, Nationwide represented Leroy in the underlying tort action filed by plaintiff pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage provision of the policy. The policy provided that the limits of liability for uninsured motorist (hereinafter \u201cUM\u201d) coverage for personal injury would be $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident.\nOn 18 March 1988 Nationwide made a $3,842.04 payment to plaintiff on account of the property damage claim. Nationwide made no further payment at any time prior to judgment for plaintiff\u2019s personal injuries.\nOn 6 June 1990 a jury rendered a verdict in the tort action in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $64,000 for personal injuries and $6,000 for property damage.\nOn 12 February 1991 Nationwide paid $26,380.96 to plaintiff on account of the jury verdict in the underlying tort action, representing the $25,000 limit of liability contained in the UM coverage, plus post-judgment interest on that amount.\nOn 31 May 1991 Nationwide paid $2,329.51 to plaintiff, representing the difference between the $6,000 property damage verdict and the 18 March 1988 payment under the collision coverage of the Nationwide policy, as well as postjudgment interest.\nOn 23 May 1991 plaintiff brought a declaratory action against Nationwide, seeking a ruling that, inter alia, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on the judgment rendered in the underlying tort action. The trial court denied plaintiffs request for declaratory relief. Plaintiff appeals.\nMast, Morris, Schulz & Mast, P.A., by George B. Mast and Bradley N. Schulz, for plaintiff appellant.\nRagsdale, Liggett & Foley, by Stephanie Hutchins Autry, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 341
}