{
  "id": 11147227,
  "name": "EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Anderson v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1999-09-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-1466",
  "first_page": "724",
  "last_page": "727",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 724"
    }
  ],
  "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": "299 S.E.2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "780"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520808
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 552",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        139657
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/346/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "525"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11915780
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "115"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "518 S.E.2d 198",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "199",
          "parenthetical": "order denying motion to dismiss \"leaves the issues as to all parties and all claims open for future adjudication by the court\" (emphasis in original)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11145673
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "495",
          "parenthetical": "order denying motion to dismiss \"leaves the issues as to all parties and all claims open for future adjudication by the court\" (emphasis in original)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "507 S.E.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61-62"
        },
        {
          "page": "62",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "61",
          "parenthetical": "appellate review facilitated when trial court sets forth basis for determination for \"no just reason to delay\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N.C. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11198692
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249"
        },
        {
          "page": "250"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/131/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "441 S.E.2d 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rule 54(b) certification \"is not disposi-tional when the order appealed from is interlocutory\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2532486,
        2528043,
        2530031,
        2531637,
        2526327
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rule 54(b) certification \"is not disposi-tional when the order appealed from is interlocutory\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0557-02",
        "/nc/335/0557-04",
        "/nc/335/0557-03",
        "/nc/335/0557-01",
        "/nc/335/0557-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "431 S.E.2d 868",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "869"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521644
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "264"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524317
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "640"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 S.E.2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "668"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659725
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "585"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0583-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 S.E.2d 868",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, and is generally not immediately appealable, even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b)\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2544832,
        2540705,
        2539189,
        2543193,
        2543230
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, and is generally not immediately appealable, even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b)\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0731-03",
        "/nc/328/0731-04",
        "/nc/328/0731-02",
        "/nc/328/0731-05",
        "/nc/328/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "399 S.E.2d 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "147",
          "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, and is generally not immediately appealable, even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b)\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527593
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "264",
          "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, and is generally not immediately appealable, even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b)\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/101/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E.2d 868",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "871",
          "parenthetical": "trial court's finding \"there is no just reason for delay\" \"does not make the denial of summary judgment immediately appealable because it is not a final judgment\""
        },
        {
          "page": "871"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4708418
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "425",
          "parenthetical": "trial court's finding \"there is no just reason for delay\" \"does not make the denial of summary judgment immediately appealable because it is not a final judgment\""
        },
        {
          "page": "425"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E.2d 443",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "447",
          "parenthetical": "trial court's denomination of its decree as \"a final . . . judgment does not make it so\""
        },
        {
          "page": "447"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567731
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491",
          "parenthetical": "trial court's denomination of its decree as \"a final . . . judgment does not make it so\""
        },
        {
          "page": "491"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 550",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "552"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12137244
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "564"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "431 S.E.2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "803",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521434
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        54080,
        54180,
        54223,
        53970,
        53909
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0340-02",
        "/nc/345/0340-03",
        "/nc/345/0340-05",
        "/nc/345/0340-04",
        "/nc/345/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "477 S.E.2d 693",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "695"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11889996
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "524"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/124/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "382"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4714861,
        4717589,
        4718136,
        4718201,
        4717178
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0183-03",
        "/nc/315/0183-05",
        "/nc/315/0183-02",
        "/nc/315/0183-04",
        "/nc/315/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 217",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "218"
        },
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526659
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655"
        },
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/75/0654-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "437 S.E.2d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "677",
          "parenthetical": "grant of partial summary judgment, as an order not completely disposing of case, is interlocutory and there is ordinarily no right of appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520479
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "23",
          "parenthetical": "grant of partial summary judgment, as an order not completely disposing of case, is interlocutory and there is ordinarily no right of appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 S.E.2d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.C. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        793168,
        793096,
        793205
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/341/0657-02",
        "/nc/341/0657-03",
        "/nc/341/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 S.E.2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916646
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0582-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 536,
    "char_count": 9197,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.969111527023911e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7390950205977259
    },
    "sha256": "585649fe7c7fe2a0f4ee1be348cd91b65b040a5b3799b8be12a5f178ebca31c2",
    "simhash": "1:13284472243705ca",
    "word_count": 1487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.713894+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER and SMITH concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nDefendant purports to appeal the trial court\u2019s order denying its motion for summary judgment. Defendant\u2019s appeal is interlocutory and must be dismissed.\nPlaintiff filed the instant action pro se seeking the \u201cbalance\u201d of damages incurred in a 1 October 1994 automobile collision. Plaintiff alleged that at all pertinent times he maintained in effect a policy of automobile insurance issued by defendant providing, inter alia, underinsured motorist (\u201cUIM\u201d) coverage.\nDefendant subsequently moved for summary judgment asserting the action \u201c[was] improperly brought against [defendant] as named defendant in violation of [N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) (1993)],\u201d and that plaintiff\u2019s claim was barred as a matter of law by virtue of plaintiff\u2019s execution of a general release without preserving his right to pursue a UIM claim against defendant. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion.\nIt is well-settled that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory, and not generally immediately appealable. Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C. App. 582, 584, 459 S.E.2d 44, 46, disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 657, 462 S.E.2d 527 (1995); see also Liggett Group v. Sunas, 113 N.C. App. 19, 23, 437 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1993) (grant of partial summary judgment, as an order not completely disposing of case, is interlocutory and there is ordinarily no right of appeal). This rule \u201cprevent[s] fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts.\u201d Fraser v. Di Santi, 75 N.C. App. 654, 655, 331 S.E.2d 217, 218, disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 183, 337 S.E.2d 856 (1985). As our Supreme Court has noted,\n[t]here is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders.\nVeazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 363, 57 S.E.2d 377, 382 (1950).\nNonetheless, immediate appeal may be permitted pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (1990) (Rule 54(b)) (\u201ccourt may enter a final judgment. . . only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment\u201d), or under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-277 (1996) and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(d) (1995) (interlocutory order may be appealed if trial court\u2019s decision deprives appellant of substantial right). Bartlett v. Jacobs, 124 N.C. App. 521, 524, 477 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1996), disc. review denied, 345 N.C. 340, 483 S.E.2d 161 (1997).\nAlthough \u201cdenial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment,\u201d Cagle v. Teachy, 111 N.C. App. 244, 247, 431 S.E.2d 801, 803 (1993) (citations omitted), this matter was certified by the trial court pursuant to Rule 54(b) as being immediately appealable. However, Rule 54(b) \u201cdoes not authorize the appeal of claims that have not been finally adjudicated.\u201d Kirkman v. Wilson, 86 N.C. App. 561, 564, 358 S.E.2d 550, 552 (1987); see also Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 491, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979) (trial court\u2019s denomination of its decree as \u201ca final . . . judgment does not make it so\u201d); Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 425, 302 S.E.2d 868, 871 (1983) (trial court\u2019s finding \u201cthere is no just reason for delay\u201d \u201cdoes not make the denial of summary judgment immediately appealable because it is not a final judgment\u201d); Henderson v. LeBauer, 101 N.C. App. 255, 264, 399 S.E.2d 142, 147, disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 731, 404 S.E.2d 868 (1991) (\u201cdenial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment, and is generally not immediately appealable, even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b)\u201d); Fraser, 75 N.C. App. at 655, 331 S.E.2d at 218 (orders were not final determinations of defendants\u2019 rights and were dismissed on appeal despite trial court\u2019s Rule 54(b) certification).\nSimilarly, the trial court\u2019s determination that there is \u201cno just reason for delay\u201d of appeal, while accorded deference, see DKH Corp. v. Rankin-Patterson Oil Co., 348 N.C. 583, 585, 500 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1998), cannot bind the appellate coruts because \u201cruling on the interlocutory nature of appeals is properly a matter for the appellate division, not the trial court,\u201d Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 640, 321 S.E.2d 240, 249 (1984); see also McNeil v. Hicks, 111 N.C. App. 262, 264, 431 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 557, 441 S.E.2d 118 (1994) (Rule 54(b) certification \u201cis not disposi-tional when the order appealed from is interlocutory\u201d). Further, \u201capplication of the substantial right analysis\u201d is \u201cprerequisite to the [trial] court\u2019s\u201d determination there existed \u201cno just reason to delay the appeal.\u201d First Atl. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 131 N.C. App. 242, 249, 507 S.E.2d 56, 61-62 (1998).\nIn the case sub judice, there has been no adjudication as to any claim against defendant within the meaning of Rule 54(b) and thus no final judgment has been entered. See Howze v. Hughs, 134 N.C. App. 493, 495, 518 S.E.2d 198, 199 (1999) (order denying motion to dismiss \u201cleaves the issues as to all parties and all claims open for future adjudication by the court\u201d (emphasis in original)). Hence, the trial court\u2019s attempt at Rule 54(b) certification was ineffective because it cannot by certification make its decree \u201cimmediately appealable [if] it is not a final judgment.\u201d Lamb, 308 N.C. at 425, 302 S.E.2d at 871; see also Industries, 296 N.C. at 491, 251 S.E.2d at 447.\nNotwithstanding, defendant also argues the court\u2019s order denying its motion for summary judgment affects a substantial right. See Cagle, 111 N.C. App. at 247, 431 S.E.2d at 803 (denial of motion for summary judgment, even if trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b), generally not appealable unless affecting a \u201csubstantial right\u201d). Under G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 l-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(l), an otherwise interlocutory order may be appealed upon a showing that: (1) the order affects a right that is indeed \u201csubstantial,\u201d and (2) \u201cenforcement of that right, absent immediate appeal, must be \u2018lost, prejudiced or be less than adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order.\u2019 \u201d First Atl. Mgmt. Corp., 131 N.C. App. at 250, 507 S.E.2d at 62 (citation omitted).\nWe first note the trial court\u2019s attempted certification for appeal reflects no basis upon which it determined there existed \u201cno just reason for delay,\u201d thus we are unable to conclude it applied the requisite substantial right analysis prior to certification. See id. at 249, 507 S.E.2d at 61 (appellate review facilitated when trial court sets forth basis for determination for \u201cno just reason to delay\u201d). Further, while it is true our courts have recognized that matters involving the defense of sovereign immunity affect a substantial right and may thus be immediately appealable, Southern Furniture Co. v. Dept. of Transportation, 122 N.C. App. 113, 115, 468 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1996), disc. review improvidently allowed, 346 N.C. 169, 484 S.E.2d 552 (1997), defendant\u2019s attempts to analogize the case sub judice to one involving the defense of absolute or qualified immunity fail.\nIn the case sub judice, the issues presented on appeal concern whether plaintiff\u2019s action is barred by a general release and whether G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) prevents plaintiff from compelling defendant to participate as a named defendant herein. Indeed, the only possible \u201cinjury\u201d defendant will suffer if not permitted immediate appellate review is the necessity of proceeding to trial before the matter is reviewed by this Court. Avoidance of trial is not a substantial right entitling a party to immediate appellate review. Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983).\nBased on the foregoing, defendant\u2019s appeal must be dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges HUNTER and SMITH concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Golding, Meekins, Holden, Cosper & Stiles, L.L.P., by James W. Pope and John A. Stoker, for defendant-appellant.",
      "No brief for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant\nNo. COA98-1466\n(Filed 7 September 1999)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order\u2014 summary judgment denied \u2014 certification erroneous \u2014 no just reason for delay\nThe trial court\u2019s attempt to grant Rule 54(b) certification based on the order denying defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment fails because the claims have not been finally adjudicated, and the trial court\u2019s determination that there is \u201cno just reason for delay\u201d of the appeal is not binding on appellate courts.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order\u2014 substantial right\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from the denial of his summary judgment motion, based on the issues of whether plaintiff\u2019s action is barred by a general release and whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) prevents plaintiff from compelling defendant to participate as a named defendant, does not involve a substantial right entitling defendant to an immediate appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 16 September 1998 by Judge James U. Downs in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 August 1999.\nGolding, Meekins, Holden, Cosper & Stiles, L.L.P., by James W. Pope and John A. Stoker, for defendant-appellant.\nNo brief for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0724-01",
  "first_page_order": 756,
  "last_page_order": 759
}
