{
  "id": 9440446,
  "name": "ROBERTA HOLT, Guardian Ad Litem for MARY ELIZABETH HOLT, a minor; and ROBERTA HOLT, Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holt v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "2000-12-19",
  "docket_number": "No. COA99-1481",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "141 N.C. App. 139"
    }
  ],
  "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": "440 S.E.2d 898",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "900"
        },
        {
          "page": "901"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 S.E.2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "415"
        },
        {
          "page": "415",
          "parenthetical": "\"Perhaps when the award to the person who sustained the direct bodily injury does not exhaust the maximum policy limits, a consequential or derivative claim for the difference may be maintained.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "124"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "445 S.E.2d 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "67"
        },
        {
          "page": "67"
        },
        {
          "page": "68"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12132642
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "460"
        },
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 392,
    "char_count": 9797,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30097990268930735
    },
    "sha256": "f1f4ee645f6e835aa9dca8748855a810ecfa9040acfdcb5ab4e7fab1032cb183",
    "simhash": "1:135004b73cc08fa0",
    "word_count": 1533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:28:13.659098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERTA HOLT, Guardian Ad Litem for MARY ELIZABETH HOLT, a minor; and ROBERTA HOLT, Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nOn 30 March 1995 the minor plaintiff, Mary Elizabeth Holt, was injured in a single-car accident. She was a passenger in an automobile driven by Michael Ray Willoughby. The automobile was insured under an insurance policy issued by Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (\u201cAtlantic policy\u201d), in which Willoughby was the named insured. The Atlantic policy provided bodily injury liability coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, and property damage liability coverage of $25,000 per accident.\nRoberta Holt, Mary Elizabeth\u2019s mother, incurred medical expenses for the treatment of her daughter as a result of injuries arising from the accident. Consequently, plaintiffs filed a negligence action against Willoughby seeking to recover for Mary Elizabeth\u2019s injuries. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (\u201cAtlantic\u201d) settled this claim by tendering the $25,000 per person limit for bodily injury for settlement of Mary Elizabeth\u2019s injuries under the Atlantic policy.\nDespite payment of that policy limit, plaintiffs instituted the present declaratory judgment action against Atlantic asserting that Roberta Holt suffered a separate and distinct injury through payment of her daughter\u2019s medical expenses, entitling her to coverage under the Atlantic policy provisions for either bodily injury or property damage. The complaint does not state the total amount of Mary Elizabeth\u2019s medical expenses; however, the settlement agreement stipulates that in the event Roberta Holt prevails in the declaratory judgment action, her damages total $8146.45.\nOn 21 June 1999, the trial court entered summary judgment for Atlantic, concluding that the maximum policy limits had been exhausted and Roberta Holt was not entitled to any additional coverage, citing Howard v. Travelers Insurance Cos., 115 N.C. App. 458, 445 S.E.2d 66 (1994). Plaintiffs appeal.\nWe first address plaintiffs\u2019 argument that Roberta Holt is afforded coverage under the bodily injury provisions in the Atlantic policy, despite the fact that Atlantic already tendered the per person limit for bodily injury in favor of Mary Elizabeth. Plaintiffs contend that Roberta Holt\u2019s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses is separate from Mary Elizabeth\u2019s claim, such that the aggregate bodily injury policy limits of $50,000 apply, instead of the $25,000 per person limit.\nThe \u201cbodily injury\u201d provisions in the Atlantic policy provide as follows:\nDEFINITIONS\n\u201cBodily injury\u201d means bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death that results.\nLIABILITY COVERAGE\nWe will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.\nLIMIT OF LIABILITY\nThe limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each person for Bodily Injury Liability Coverage [$25,000 each person/$50,000 each accident] is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury, including damages for care, loss of services or death, sustained by any one person in any one auto accident. Subject to this limit for each person, the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Bodily Injury Liability Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury resulting from any one auto accident. . . . This is the most we will pay as a result of any one auto accident regardless of the number of:\n1. Insureds;\n2. Claims made;\n3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or\n4. Vehicles involved in the auto accident.\n(Emphasis added).\nIn Howard, the parents of a minor child sought to collect for their child\u2019s medical expenses in the amount of $305,919.09. 115 N.C. App. at 460, 445 S.E.2d at 67. The bodily injury limits on the policy at issue were $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Id. at 459, 445 S.E.2d at 67. As in this case, the parents in Howard contended their claim for medical expenses was separate from their minor child\u2019s claim for bodily injury, asserting they were entitled to the full amount of the child\u2019s expenses under the aggregate bodily injury limit of $300,000. Id. at 460, 445 S.E.2d at 68. Our Court in Howard determined that the per person policy limit of $100,000 applied, concluding that \u201c[t]he parent\u2019s claim for the child\u2019s medical expenses is derivative in nature; accordingly the parents cannot recover since they themselves have sustained no \u2018bodily injury\u2019 within the meaning of the policy.\u201d Id. at 463, 445 S.E.2d at 69.\nThe Howard opinion was supported by South Carolina Insurance Co. v. White, 82 N.C. App. 122, 345 S.E.2d 414 (1986). The \u201cLimit of Liability\u201d language at issue in White was similar to the Atlantic policy language in this case. Id. at 124, 345 S.E.2d at 415. In White, the injured party was insured by a policy with bodily injury limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Id. After the insurance company paid the injured party $25,000 in full settlement of his damage claim, his wife sought damages for loss of consortium, asserting that the aggregate policy limit applied. Id. The White Court held the insurance company had no obligation toward the wife for her derivative claim, stating:\nThe term \u201call damages\u201d used in the policy is all-inclusive. It includes not only direct damages for bodily injury sustained by [the husband], but also any indirect or consequential damages for loss of consortium. Perhaps when the award to the person who sustained the direct bodily injury does not exhaust the maximum policy limits, a consequential or derivative damage claim for the difference may be maintained. But when, as in this case, the policy limit has been exhausted by the settlement of $25,000 paid to the person who sustained the direct bodily injury, all consequential or derivative damage claims for personal injuries are subsumed within the settlement award.\nId.\nPursuant to Howard and White, we conclude Roberta Holt\u2019s claim for Mary Elizabeth\u2019s medical expenses is derivative in nature. Thus, when Atlantic exhausted the per person limit of $25,000 in settling Mary Elizabeth\u2019s claim, who sustained the direct bodily injury, Roberta Holt\u2019s derivative damage was subsumed within that settlement award. Howard, 115 N.C. App. at 463, 445 S.E.2d at 69; Cf. White, 82 N.C. App. at 124, 345 S.E.2d at 415 (\u201cPerhaps when the award to the person who sustained the direct bodily injury does not exhaust the maximum policy limits, a consequential or derivative claim for the difference may be maintained.\u201d).\nWe next consider plaintiffs\u2019 contention that Roberta Holt is entitled to recover under the property damage provisions of the Atlantic policy. As previously noted, the policy provides coverage for \u201cproperty damage,\u201d which is defined as \u201cphysical injury to, destruction of or loss of use of tangible property.\u201d (Emphasis added). Plaintiffs contend that Roberta Holt lost the use of her money through payment of her daughter\u2019s medical expenses, and that money is \u201ctangible property,\u201d entitling her to coverage under this provision.\nAt least one other court has addressed this issue, and concluded that a parent may not recover medical expenses resulting from injury to its minor child under the property damage provision in an insurance policy. Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Frazier, 440 S.E.2d 898 (Va. 1994). The property damage provision in Frazier similarly afforded coverage for damage to tangible personal property, and not for damage to intangible personal property. Id. at 900. The Frazier court concluded that the parents\u2019 claims for damages sustained by reason of paying their minor daughter\u2019s medical expenses constituted intangible property, and thus did not qualify as property damage. Id. at 901.\nWe also conclude there is nothing tangible about Roberta Holt\u2019s claim for damages sustained by reason of paying her daughter\u2019s medical expenses. Roberta ultimately seeks coverage for the medical expenses arising from her daughter\u2019s bodily injury. Her claim is not properly characterized as a separate claim for lost money compensable as property damage, as plaintiffs contend.\nThe trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Atlantic.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and HUNTER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hill & High, L.L.P., by John Alan High, for the plaintiff - appellants.",
      "Johnson & Lambeth, by John G. Tillery, III, for the defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERTA HOLT, Guardian Ad Litem for MARY ELIZABETH HOLT, a minor; and ROBERTA HOLT, Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant\nNo. COA99-1481\n(Filed 19 December 2000)\n1. Insurance\u2014 automobile \u2014 parent\u2019s claim for minor\u2019s medical expenses \u2014 derivative of child\u2019s claim\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant-insurance company on a claim for injuries to the minor plaintiff arising from a car accident where defendant had settled the claim by tendering the per person limit for bodily injury for the minor\u2019s injury, but plaintiff-mother contended that her claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was separate from her daughter\u2019s claim, so that the aggregate bodily injury limit applied rather than the per person limit. The mother\u2019s claim for expenses is derivative in nature and was subsumed in the settlement of the daughter\u2019s claim.\n2. Insurance\u2014 automobile \u2014 medical expenses \u2014 not property damage\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant-insurance company on a mother\u2019s claim under a property damage provision for medical expenses which she paid following her daughter\u2019s automobile accident. There is nothing tangible about this claim and it is not properly characterized as a separate claim for lost money compensable as property damage.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order entered 21 June 1999 by Judge Abraham P. Jones in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 October 2000.\nHill & High, L.L.P., by John Alan High, for the plaintiff - appellants.\nJohnson & Lambeth, by John G. Tillery, III, for the defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 169,
  "last_page_order": 173
}