{
  "id": 11242203,
  "name": "J. KENNETH LEE and MICHELE P. LEE, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED, and SANDRA H. LEE, (WIDOW OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED), Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, SSB (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GREENSBORO), J. STEVEN LEE and THE ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. Mutual Community Savings Bank",
  "decision_date": "2000-03-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA99-413",
  "first_page": "808",
  "last_page": "811",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 808"
    }
  ],
  "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": "735 F. Supp. 1320",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4072165
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1327",
          "parenthetical": "noting North Carolina courts have not held that a party must allege a violation of Chapter 58 of the North Carolina General Statutes prior to bringing a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices against an insurance company pursuant to section 75-1.1"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/735/1320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 S.E.2d 519",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2532101,
        2527527,
        2527596,
        2527312,
        2528350
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0770-05",
        "/nc/335/0770-02",
        "/nc/335/0770-03",
        "/nc/335/0770-04",
        "/nc/335/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 S.E.2d 537",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "542"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521339
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "302"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "497"
        },
        {
          "page": "498"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11919565
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "665"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 638",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "640"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527179
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 S.E.2d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "92",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526705
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "112",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 S.E.2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "668"
        },
        {
          "page": "668"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659725
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "585"
        },
        {
          "page": "585"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0583-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "881",
          "parenthetical": "citing Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E.2d 377 (1950)"
        },
        {
          "page": "881",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "881"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11467465
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334",
          "parenthetical": "citing Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E.2d 377 (1950)"
        },
        {
          "page": "334"
        },
        {
          "page": "334"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 S.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "433"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "208"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-63-15",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 458,
    "char_count": 9046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3415591034812987e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6314051514200248
    },
    "sha256": "f9b25c01baa9046859c3a63255f3148433b7dd0a828d586cdcd82b525d02f966",
    "simhash": "1:0bf0d626682a9e7a",
    "word_count": 1486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:36.366510+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "J. KENNETH LEE and MICHELE P. LEE, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED, and SANDRA H. LEE, (WIDOW OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED), Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, SSB (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GREENSBORO), J. STEVEN LEE and THE ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nJ. Kenneth Lee and Michele P. Lee, co-Executors of the Estate of Michael E. Lee, Deceased, and Sandra H. Lee (Widow of Michael E. Lee, Deceased) (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal an order filed 7 December 1998 in favor of J. Steven Lee (Lee) and The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), granting St. Paul\u2019s and Lee\u2019s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 claim against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\nPlaintiffs allege Michael E. Lee and Sandra H. Lee (collectively, the Borrowers) received a loan in 1977 from the company that is now Mutual Community Savings Bank, SSB (Mutual) to purchase property located at Topsail Island (the property). Plaintiffs allege the Borrowers paid funds to Mutual for the purpose of maintaining an insurance policy on the property, and Mutual allowed the policy to lapse for non-payment of premiums. Plaintiffs suffered a loss when, subsequent to the lapse of the policy, the property was destroyed by a hurricane.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint also alleges a cause of action against Mutual\u2019s liability adjuster, St. Paul, and St. Paul\u2019s agent, Lee, for actions \u201cconstituting] an unfair and deceptive practice.\u201d Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint does not state under which statute these claims are brought.\nOn 7 December 1998, St. Paul and Lee filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 claim against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the trial court granted the motion in a 7 December 1998 order. The order was not certified for appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b).\nThe issues are whether: (I) the trial court\u2019s order granting St. Paul\u2019s and Lee\u2019s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint is appealable; and (II) Plaintiffs\u2019 claim against St. Paul and Lee for actions \u201cconstituting] an unfair and deceptive practice,\u201d which does not allege a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-63-15, is barred as a complaint against a third-party insurance agency of an adverse party.\nI\nAlthough neither party has raised the interlocutory nature of this appeal, we deem it appropriate to raise this issue sua sponte. Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 208, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433 (1980). \u201cAn order is interlocutory if it does not determine the entire controversy between all of the parties.\u201d Abe v. Westview Capital, 130 N.C. App. 332, 334, 502 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1998) (citing Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E.2d 377 (1950)).\nIn this case, the trial court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 claims against St. Paul and Lee, but there is no evidence in the record that the trial court dismissed or otherwise adjudicated Plaintiffs\u2019 claims against Mutual. The dismissal order, therefore, is interlocutory because it did not determine the entire controversy between all of the parties.\nAlthough there is generally no right to immediate appeal from an interlocutory order, Abe, 130 N.C. App. at 334, 502 S.E.2d at 881 (citation omitted), an interlocutory order is appealable in two instances. First, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277 and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27(d), an interlocutory order is appealable if the order \u201caffects a substantial right.\u201d DKH Corp. v. Rankin-Patterson Oil Co., 348 N.C. 583, 585, 500 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1998). \u201cA substantial right is a right which will be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before the final judgment.\u201d Jenkins v. Maintenance, Inc., 76 N.C. App. 110, 112, 332 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1985) (citation omitted). Second, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), an interlocutory order is appealable in an action with multiple parties and multiple claims \u201cif the trial court enters a final judgment as to a party or a claim and certifies there is no just reason for delay.\u201d DKH Corp., 348 N.C. at 585, 500 S.E.2d at 668. When an interlocutory order is appealed, \u201cit is the appellant\u2019s burden to present argument in his brief to this Court to support acceptance of the appeal.\u201d Abe, 130 N.C. App. at 334, 502 S.E.2d at 881.\nIn this case, Plaintiffs do not present any argument in their brief to this Court to support a conclusion that the trial court\u2019s order affects a substantial right. Moreover, although the trial court\u2019s order is a final judgment as to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims against St. Paul and Lee, the order was not certified pursuant to Rule 54(b). The order, therefore, is interlocutory. Nevertheless, we will exercise our power to grant certiorari to address Plaintiffs\u2019 appeal. See N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1); Garris v. Garris, 92 N.C. App. 467, 471, 374 S.E.2d 638, 640 (1988).\nII\nThis Court has held \u201ca private right of action under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-63[-]15 and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 may not be asserted by a third-party claimant against the insurer of an adverse party.\u201d Wilson v. Wilson, 121 N.C. App. 662, 665, 468 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1996). The Wilson court reasoned \u201callowing such third-party suits against insurers would encourage unwarranted settlement demands\u201d and \u201cmay result in a conflict of interest for the insurance company.\u201d Id. at 666-67, 468 S.E.2d at 498.\nIn this case there is no dispute Plaintiffs are third parties asserting a claim against the insurer, St. Paul, of an adverse party, Mutual. Plaintiffs contend their claim is nonetheless valid because they have not made any claim under section 58-63-15. Instead, they are relying solely upon section 75-1.1. This is a distinction without a difference. The teaching of Wilson is that North Carolina does not recognize any cause of action for unfair or deceptive trade practices by third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party.\nIn this case, Plaintiffs asserted claims against St. Paul and Lee for unfair or deceptive trade practices. The rule from Wilson bars these claims and they were, therefore, properly dismissed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and HUNTER concur.\n. Plaintiffs\u2019 sole assignment of error states: \u201cThe trial court committed error when it dismissed [Plaintiffs\u2019] claim with prejudice against DEFENDANTS, [Lee] and [St. Paul] under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d Assignments of error must \u201cstate plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1); see also N.C.R. App. P., Appendix C, Table 4. Plaintiffs\u2019 assignment of error does not state the legal basis upon which it is assigned; nevertheless, in our discretion, we address Plaintiffs\u2019 appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 2.\n. An unfair or deceptive trade practice claim against an insurance company can be based on violations of either section 75-1.1 or section 58-63-15. A violation of section 58-63-15, however, constitutes a violation of section 75-1.1. Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 295, 302, 435 S.E.2d 537, 542 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994). Furthermore, the remedy for a violation of section 58-63-15 is the filing of a section 75-1.1 claim. Id. (citation omitted). There is no requirement, however, that a party bringing a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices against an insurance company allege a violation of section 58-63-15 in order to bring a claim pursuant to section 75-1.1. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 735 F. Supp. 1320, 1327 (E.D.N.C. 1990) (noting North Carolina courts have not held that a party must allege a violation of Chapter 58 of the North Carolina General Statutes prior to bringing a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices against an insurance company pursuant to section 75-1.1).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald Barbee, for plaintiff-appellants.",
      "Little & Little, PLLC, by Cathryn M. Little, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. KENNETH LEE and MICHELE P. LEE, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED, and SANDRA H. LEE, (WIDOW OF MICHAEL E. LEE, DECEASED), Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, SSB (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GREENSBORO), J. STEVEN LEE and THE ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants\nNo. COA99-413\n(Filed 7 March 2000)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order\u2014 certiorari granted\nAlthough the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants St. Paul\u2019s and Lee\u2019s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is an interlocutory order since plaintiffs did not present any argument to support a conclusion that the order affects a substantial right and the order was not certified pursuant to Rule 54(b), the Court of Appeals exercised its discretionary power under N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1) to grant certiorari to address plaintiffs\u2019 appeal.\n2. Unfair Trade Practices\u2014 third-party claimants \u2014 insurance company of adverse party\nThe trial court did not err in granting defendants St. Paul\u2019s and Lee\u2019s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) because North Carolina does not recognize any cause of action for unfair or deceptive trade practices by third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order filed 7 December 1998 by Judge Julius A. Rousseau, Jr. in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 January 2000.\nRonald Barbee, for plaintiff-appellants.\nLittle & Little, PLLC, by Cathryn M. Little, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0808-01",
  "first_page_order": 842,
  "last_page_order": 845
}