{
  "id": 11889806,
  "name": "ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA MOTOR VEHICLE REINSURANCE FACILITY, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. North Carolina Motor Vehicle Reinsurance Facility",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-1336",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 450"
    }
  ],
  "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": "42 ALR4th 1130",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N.C. App. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522439
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/98/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E.2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "26"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564666
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "539"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-2-75",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-65",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-35",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-25",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 6528,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.713,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7482202630346403
    },
    "sha256": "b8f629a14e93b3f25b8bd1ddc0870c2023bbc24e487740c9f9c7db4db2de1181",
    "simhash": "1:bb219838b479a152",
    "word_count": 1027
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA MOTOR VEHICLE REINSURANCE FACILITY, Respondent-Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nSt. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (petitioner) appeals a judgment of the Wake County Superior Court affirming the final agency decision of the North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance holding that when petitioner writes motor vehicle liability insurance that is ceded to the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Reinsurance Facility (Facility) (respondent) it must use only those forms filed by or on behalf of the respondent.\nThe facts in this case are not in dispute. In 1979 the petitioner, an insurer licensed to write within North Carolina motor vehicle insurance, requested permission from the Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) to use its \u201creadable\u201d insurance policy for commercial automobile insurance. The policy form was approved. Simultaneous with that approval, the petitioner began using that approved form for both its voluntary commercial automobile business and that business ceded to the Facility, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-25 (1994). This information was discovered by the Facility in early 1991 while conducting a routine audit. In March 1991, the Facility notified petitioner that its policy form was not proper for the issuance of insurance ceded to the Facility.\nThe petitioner thereafter requested the Facility to approve its policy form for use in ceded business and that the approved form be filed with the Commissioner pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-35(1) (1994). The Facility rejected the petitioner\u2019s request and the petitioner appealed, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-37-65(b) (1994), to the Commissioner. The Commissioner approved the decision of the Facility and directed that the petitioner \u201cuse Facility forms for business ceded to the Facility.\u201d The petitioner, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-2-75(a) (1994), appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the Commissioner.\nThe dispositive issue is whether an insurer, writing automobile insurance in North Carolina, is permitted to use its own policy forms on insurance policies ceded to the Facility.\nIn North Carolina every \u201cinsurer[] licensed to write and engaged in writing within this State motor vehicle insurance or any component thereof,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-5 (1994), is required to \u201caccept and insure any otherwise unacceptable applicant therefor who is an eligible risk if cession of the particular coverage and coverage limits applied for are permitted in the Facility.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-25(a). The insurer is required to \u201cprovide the same type of service to ceded business that it provides for its voluntary market.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-25(b). \u201cThe classifications, rules, rates, rating plans and policy forms used on motor vehicle insurance policies [ceded to] the Facility may be made by the Facility or by any licensed or statutory rating organization or bureau on its behalf and shall be filed with the Commissioner [of Insurance].\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-35(1).\nThe petitioner argues that because it is required to provide the same \u201ctype of service\u201d to ceded business that it provides to its voluntary business, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-25(b), the Facility is required to approve and file with the Commissioner policy forms for motor vehicle insurance ceded to the Facility that are the same as those used by the insurer in its voluntary business. We disagree.\nSection 58-37-35(1) is unambiguous in stating that insurers are required to use, in the writing of motor vehicle insurance policies ceded to the Facility, only those policy forms \u201cmade\u201d by the Facility or those \u201cmade\u201d by \u201cany licensed or statutory rating organization or bureau\u201d and filed with the Commissioner. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-35(1). Therefore, even if we accept the petitioner\u2019s argument, which we seriously question, that \u201ctype of service\u201d can be construed to include policy forms, because the legislature has specifically stated in another statute that policy forms are to be determined by the Facility, the more specific statute prevails. See Highway Comm\u2019n v. Hemphill, 269 N.C. 535, 539, 153 S.E.2d 22, 26 (1967). Thus there is no violation of the anti-discrimination provision of section 58-37-25(b) when the Facility mandates the uniform use of policy forms for all ceded motor vehicle insurance business.\nWe have carefully considered the other arguments asserted by the petitioner and overrule them. Accordingly, the judgment of the Wake County Superior Court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.\n. See N. C. Reinsurance Facility v. Long, 98 N.C. App. 41, 46, 390 S.E.2d 176, 179 (1990), holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51 (1995), \u201cis the controlling judicial review statute\u201d with respect to review of the decisions of the Commissioner. The Court further noted, however, that \u201c[t]o the extent that G.S. sec. 58-2-75 adds to and is consistent with the judicial review function of G.S. sec. 150B-51, we will proceed by applying the review standards articulated in both statutes.\u201d\n. There is no dispute in this case that the forms filed by the Facility with respect to commercial automobile insurance are those \u201cmade\u201d by Insurance Services Office, a rating organization.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P., by J. Ruffin Bailey and Alan J. Miles, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Young Moore and Henderson, P.A., by William M. Trott and R. Michael Strickland, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA MOTOR VEHICLE REINSURANCE FACILITY, Respondent-Appellee\nNo. COA95-1336\n(Filed 5 November 1996)\nInsurance \u00a7 383 (NCI4th)\u2014 ceded automobile insurance \u2014 use of Reinsurance Facility forms\nAn insurer writing automobile insurance in North Carolina is not permitted to use its own policy forms on insurance policies ceded to the Reinsurance Facility but must use only those forms filed by or on behalf of the Reinsurance Facility. The Reinsurance Facility is not required to approve and file with the Commissioner of Insurance policy forms for motor vehicle insurance ceded to the Reinsurance Facility that are the same as those used by the insurer in its voluntary business because the insurer is required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-25(b) to provide the \u201csame type of service\u201d to ceded business that it provides to its voluntary business. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-37-25(1).\nAm Jur 2d, Insurance \u00a7\u00a7 1831-1841.\nReinsurer\u2019s liability for primary liability insurer\u2019s failure to compromise or settle. 42 ALR4th 1130.\nAppeal by petitioner from judgment entered 25 August 1995 in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Henry V. Barnette. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 1996.\nBailey & Dixon, L.L.P., by J. Ruffin Bailey and Alan J. Miles, for petitioner-appellant.\nYoung Moore and Henderson, P.A., by William M. Trott and R. Michael Strickland, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 488,
  "last_page_order": 491
}
