{
  "id": 8956360,
  "name": "VELVET STURDIVANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JACQUELINE ELIZABETH POLK, Plaintiff v. JESSE LEE ANDREWS and LEMONS BACKHOE LOADER SERVICE, INC., and RICKY LENORD POLK, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sturdivant v. Andrews",
  "decision_date": "2003-11-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA02-1455",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "525 S.E.2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "843"
        },
        {
          "page": "842",
          "parenthetical": "stating that the applicable statute of limitations begins to run on the date of accident for actions against both the tortfeasor and the UM carrier"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 750",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11241875
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "754"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0750-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)(3)(a)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(b)(4)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 118",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "122"
        },
        {
          "page": "122"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511376
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        },
        {
          "page": "576-77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 S.E.2d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "566"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548060
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "226"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/34/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "881",
          "parenthetical": "\"An order is interlocutory if it does not determine the entire controversy between all of the parties.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11467465
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334",
          "parenthetical": "\"An order is interlocutory if it does not determine the entire controversy between all of the parties.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0332-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 389,
    "char_count": 7010,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1767305222739782e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7718399798598297
    },
    "sha256": "5d74fcee51475c684d25f26256c73fff2a7de9a245741449a1dd77d3e0aa35f1",
    "simhash": "1:0b2b55b015457a0a",
    "word_count": 1132
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:07.642184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and GEER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "VELVET STURDIVANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JACQUELINE ELIZABETH POLK, Plaintiff v. JESSE LEE ANDREWS and LEMONS BACKHOE LOADER SERVICE, INC., and RICKY LENORD POLK, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nVelvet Sturdivant (plaintiff) appeals an order dated 9 August 2002 dismissing unnamed defendant Atlantic Insurance Company (Atlantic), which had issued an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance policy to plaintiff, from plaintiffs wrongful death action against named defendants Ricky Lenord Polk (Polk), Lemons Backhoe Service, and Jesse Lee Andrews (Andrews).\nPlaintiff is the administratrix of the estate of her deceased daughter, Jacqueline Elizabeth Polk. On 12 April 2000, Jacqueline was a passenger in a car owned and driven by Polk (no relation). The car collided with a loaded timber truck owned by Lemons Backhoe Service and driven by its agent, Andrews. Jacqueline died as a result of the collision. At the time of the accident, Polk and his car were uninsured.\nOn 8 December 2000, plaintiff instituted a wrongful death action against Polk, Lemons Backhoe Service, and Andrews. On 12 June 2002, plaintiff\u2019s counsel sent a regular first-class letter to Atlantic, providing notice of the action against defendants and indicating plaintiffs intention to seek from Atlantic $50,000.00 coverage under plaintiffs UM policy. On 28 June 2002, Atlantic, as an unnamed defendant and on behalf of Polk, moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, and expiration of the statute of limitations. On 3 July 2002 (more than two years after the accident), plaintiffs counsel served Atlantic through certified mail a copy of the summons and complaint issued by plaintiff against the named defendants. In an order dated 9 August 2002, the trial court granted Atlantic\u2019s motion and dismissed with prejudice plaintiff\u2019s claim against Atlantic.\nThe dispositive issue is whether an action against a UM carrier is subject to the statute of limitations for the insured\u2019s tort action against the uninsured motorist.\nThe appeal in this case is interlocutory and therefore not immediately appealable. See Abe v. Westview Capital, 130 N.C. App. 332, 334, 502 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1998) (\u201cAn order is interlocutory if it does not determine the entire controversy between all of the parties.\u201d). We nevertheless elect to grant certiorari under Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to review this matter on the merits. See N.C.R. App. P. 21.\n\u201cAn insurance policy is a contract[] and is to be construed and enforced in accordance with its terms insofar as they are not in conflict with pertinent statutes and court decisions.\u201d Poultry Corp. v. Ins. Co., 34 N.C. App. 224, 226, 237 S.E.2d 564, 566 (1977). The statute of limitations for bringing a contract action is three years. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-52(1) (2001). In comparison, the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action is two years. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-53(4) (2001).\nRecently, the North Carolina Supreme Court asserted in dictum:\nIn the situation where a tortfeasor has no liability insurance coverage, the injured insured\u2019s UM carrier generally would be the only insurance provider exposed to liability for the insured\u2019s claim for damages. As such, it follows that the UM provider need be made a party to the suit and be served with a copy of the summons and complaint within the statute of limitations governing the underlying tort.\nLiberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington, 356 N.C. 571, 577, 573 S.E.2d 118, 122 (2002) (holding that an insured\u2019s mere failure to notify an underinsured motorist [UIM] carrier within the statute of limitations for the underlying tort does not preclude recovery for UIM benefits because the tortfeasor remains principally responsible to defend the tort claim and the UIM carrier is responsible for the insured\u2019s injuries only when the limits of the tortfeasor\u2019s liability coverage have been exhausted).\nAlthough dicta, the Court\u2019s reasoning is consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3)(a). Under the statute, after an insured has served an uninsured motorist carrier with a copy of a summons, complaint, or other process, the carrier becomes a party to an action between the insured and the UM and is permitted to defend the suit in its own name or the name of the uninsured motorist. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3)(a) (2001). In requiring the UM carrier to be included in the underlying tort action, the legislature intended to subject the insured\u2019s action against the carrier to the statute of limitations for the tort claim. Cf. Pennington, 356 N.C. at 576-77, 573 S.E.2d at 122 (finding that an insured does not need to notify a UIM carrier within the statute of limitations for the tort claim against a UIM because N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) does not specify the form, substance, or manner of the notice to be given to a UIM carrier and does not require such an insurer to become a party in the tort action).\nThe Court\u2019s reasoning in Pennington is also consistent with this Court\u2019s earlier ruling in Thomas v. Washington, 136 N.C. App. 750, 525 S.E.2d 839 (2000). In Thomas, this Court concluded that an insured\u2019s action against a UM carrier was time-barred because the insured failed to properly serve the carrier within the three-year statute of limitations for the underlying negligence action against the uninsured motorist. Id. at 756, 525 S.E.2d at 843.\nIn the instant case, plaintiff\u2019s daughter died as a result of an accident on 12 April 2000. Atlantic, plaintiffs UM carrier, was served with a copy of the summons and complaint of the underlying wrongful death action on 3 July 2002, well after the two-year statute of limitations for the action had run. See Thomas, 136 N.C. App. at 754, 525 S.E.2d at 842 (stating that the applicable statute of limitations begins to run on the date of accident for actions against both the tortfeasor and the UM carrier). Consequently, Atlantic cannot be made a defendant, and the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff\u2019s action against Atlantic.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McGEE and GEER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry T. Drake for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Caudle & Spears, P.A., by Michael J. Selle and Eric Allen Rogers, for unnamed defendant-appellee Atlantic Indemnity Company.",
      "Templeton & Raynor, RA., by Kenneth R. Raynor, for defendant-appellees Jesse Lee Andrews and Lemons Backhoe Loader Service, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VELVET STURDIVANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JACQUELINE ELIZABETH POLK, Plaintiff v. JESSE LEE ANDREWS and LEMONS BACKHOE LOADER SERVICE, INC., and RICKY LENORD POLK, Defendants\nNo. COA02-1455\n(Filed 4 November 2003)\nStatutes of Limitation and Repose\u2014 uninsured motorist claim \u2014 underlying action\nAn action against an uninsured motorist carrier is subject to the statute of limitations for the insured\u2019s tort action against the uninsured motorist. In this case, the company was served with a copy of the summons and complaint of the underlying wrongful death action well after the two-year statute of limitations had run.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order dated 9 August 2002 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Anson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2003.\nHenry T. Drake for plaintiff-appellant.\nCaudle & Spears, P.A., by Michael J. Selle and Eric Allen Rogers, for unnamed defendant-appellee Atlantic Indemnity Company.\nTempleton & Raynor, RA., by Kenneth R. Raynor, for defendant-appellees Jesse Lee Andrews and Lemons Backhoe Loader Service, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 210
}