{
  "id": 9081464,
  "name": "GAYLA B. JOHNSON, Individually and As Guardian Ad Litem for RACHEL E. JOHNSON, minor, Plaintiffs v. IRVIN WAYNE BREWINGTON, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Brewington",
  "decision_date": "2002-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-865",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. App. 425"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 S.E.2d 11",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "13"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611175
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "694"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11468265
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "452"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0449-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 354,
    "char_count": 7212,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.709,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39472532954623996
    },
    "sha256": "b2b10bb17da9143b948c4477e93adad9883989c766bc854cff551627c3019d0c",
    "simhash": "1:9d795c433e44fcde",
    "word_count": 1119
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:10.836930+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GAYLA B. JOHNSON, Individually and As Guardian Ad Litem for RACHEL E. JOHNSON, minor, Plaintiffs v. IRVIN WAYNE BREWINGTON, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nIrvin Wayne Brewington (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals the trial court\u2019s order striking his demand for trial de novo following entry of an \u201cArbitration Award and Judgment\u201d awarding $5,426.19 in favor of Gayla B. Johnson and Rachel E. Johnson (\u201cplaintiffs\u201d). We reverse and remand.\nPlaintiffs and defendant were involved in an automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed this action alleging negligence by defendant and seeking damages. The trial court ordered the parties to participate in nonbinding arbitration pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-37.1 (1999). Plaintiffs, plaintiffs\u2019 attorney, defendant, and defendant\u2019s attorney attended the arbitration hearing. The arbitrator entered a total award of $5,426.19 in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant filed a demand for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules for Court-Ordered Arbitration. Plaintiffs then filed a \u201cMotion to Enforce Arbitration Award and Deny Defendant\u2019s Request for Trial De Novo\u201d contending that defendant\u2019s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (\u201cAllstate\u201d), was the \u201creal party in interest,\u201d that a representative of Allstate was required to appear at the arbitration hearing, and that Allstate\u2019s failure to have a representative appear at the arbitration hearing constituted a failure to \u201cparticipate in good faith and in a meaningful manner.\u201d On this basis, plaintiffs requested that the trial court sanction defendant by striking defendant\u2019s request for trial de novo and enforcing the arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs. The trial court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion, and defendant appeals.\nThe sole issue in this case is whether the Rules for Court-Ordered Arbitration in North Carolina require that a representative of a defendant\u2019s insurance carrier be present at a court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration hearing, despite the fact that the insurance carrier is not a party named in the action. We answer the question in the negative.\nRule 3(p) requires all \u201cparties\u201d to be present at arbitration hearings. See R. Ct.-Ordered Arbitration in N.C. 3(p), 2002 N.C. R. Ct. 233. This requirement may be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) the party himself may appear \u201cin person,\u201d or (2) the party may appear \u201cthrough representatives authorized to make binding decisions on their behalf in all matters in controversy before the arbitrator.\u201d See id. The trial court here determined that although defendant appeared at the arbitration hearing, Allstate was \u201cthe real party in interest in the defense of this lawsuit,\u201d and that Allstate violated Rule 3(p) by not having a representative present at the arbitration hearing. The trial court further concluded that Allstate\u2019s violation of Rule 3(p) warranted sanctions pursuant to Rule 3(1), which provides that the court may impose certain types of sanctions against \u201c[a]ny party failing or refusing to participate in an arbitration proceeding in a good faith and meaningful manner.\u201d See R. Ct.-Ordered Arbitration in N.C. 3(1), 2002 N.C. R. Ct 233.\n\u201cIn 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized statewide, court-ordered arbitration and further authorized the North Carolina Supreme Court to adopt certain rules governing this procedure. Subsequently, the Supreme Court implemented the Rules for Court-Ordered Arbitration . . . .\u201d Taylor v. Cadle, 130 N.C. App. 449, 452, 502 S.E.2d 692, 694 (1998). Had our Supreme Court determined that the objectives of court-ordered arbitration would best be served by requiring representatives of defendants\u2019 insurance carriers to be present for, and participate in, arbitration hearings, we believe the Court would have so specified in the rules. For example, Rule 4(A)(1)(b) of the Rules of Mediated Settlement Conferences expressly requires the attendance at a mediated settlement conference of \u201c[a] representative of each liability insurance carrier, uninsured motorist insurance carrier, and underinsured motorist insurance carrier which may be obligated to pay all or part of any claim presented in the action.\u201d R. Implementing Statewide Mediated Settlement Confs. in Superior Ct. Civil Actions 4(A)(1)(b), 2002 N.C. R. Ct. 82. The Rules for Court-Ordered Arbitration contain no such requirement. Instead, Rule 3(p) requires only that \u201cparties\u201d be present at arbitration hearings, and we have found nothing to support the view that this term was intended to include a defendant\u2019s insurance carrier not named in the action.\nMoreover, our Supreme Court has specifically held that \u201cin an action ex delicto for damages proximately caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, his liability insurance carrier is not a proper party defendant.\u201d Taylor v. Green, 242 N.C. 156, 158, 87 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1955). Thus, the trial court\u2019s determination that Allstate is \u201cthe real party in interest\u201d in this case was error.\nWe hold that the trial court erred in determining that Allstate was required by Rule 3(p) to have a representative present at the arbitration hearing. We further hold that the trial court erred in finding that defendant violated Rule 3(1), and in imposing sanctions against defendant by striking defendant\u2019s demand for trial de novo and enforcing the arbitration award. We reverse the trial court\u2019s order and remand this case with instructions for the trial court to grant defendant\u2019s demand for trial de novo, and to address any pending motions by either party.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUNTER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murray, Craven & Inman, L.L.P., by Richard T. Craven and Thomas W. Pleasant, for plaintiff-appellees.",
      "Walker, Clark, Allen, Herrin & Morano, L.L.P., by Jerry A. Allen, Jr. And Gay P. Stanley, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GAYLA B. JOHNSON, Individually and As Guardian Ad Litem for RACHEL E. JOHNSON, minor, Plaintiffs v. IRVIN WAYNE BREWINGTON, Defendant\nNo. COA01-865\n(Filed 21 May 2002)\nArbitration and Mediation\u2014 nonbinding arbitration \u2014 trial de novo \u2014 defendant\u2019s insurance carrier not a proper party defendant\nThe trial court erred in a negligence case arising out of an automobile accident by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a trial de novo after the parties participated in nonbinding arbitration under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-37.1 based on the trial court\u2019s erroneous conclusion that defendant\u2019s insurance carrier was required by Rule 3(p) of the Rules of Court-Ordered Arbitration in North Carolina to have a representative present at the arbitration hearing, and the case is remanded with instructions for the trial court to grant defendant\u2019s demand for trial de novo and to address any pending motions by either party, because: (1) the Rules of Court-Ordered Arbitration in North Carolina do not require that a representative of a defendant\u2019s insurance carrier be present at a court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration hearing when the insurance carrier is not a party named in the action; and (2) our Supreme Court has specifically held that in an action ex delicto for damages proximately caused by the alleged negligence of defendant, his liability insurance carrier is not a proper party defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from orders entered 24 January 2001 and 25 January 2001 by Judge Kimbrell Kelly Tucker in Cumberland County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 April 2002.\nMurray, Craven & Inman, L.L.P., by Richard T. Craven and Thomas W. Pleasant, for plaintiff-appellees.\nWalker, Clark, Allen, Herrin & Morano, L.L.P., by Jerry A. Allen, Jr. And Gay P. Stanley, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 455,
  "last_page_order": 458
}