{ "id": 8374448, "name": "NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, JR., TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, SR., Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., RAMONA ARMWOOD, Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., JIMMY LEE BEST, and STELLA H. BOSTIC, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Armwood", "decision_date": "2007-01-16", "docket_number": "No. COA06-176", "first_page": "407", "last_page": "417", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 N.C. App. 407" } ], "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": "612 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632828 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "599 S.E.2d 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631459 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631458, 12631459, 12631448, 12631450, 12631451, 12631453, 12631454, 12631455 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/599/0408-01", "/se2d/599/0409-01", "/se2d/599/0400-01", "/se2d/599/0404-01", "/se2d/599/0405-01", "/se2d/599/0406-01", "/se2d/599/0406-02", "/se2d/599/0407-02" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "401 S.E.2d 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "90", "parenthetical": "\"The two Acts are complementary and are to be construed in pari materia so as to harmonize them and give effect to both.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528014 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631", "parenthetical": "\"The two Acts are complementary and are to be construed in pari materia so as to harmonize them and give effect to both.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574109 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E.2d 303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624259 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62-268", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" }, { "page": "490" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12127010 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" }, { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "390-91" }, { "page": "390-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796124 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" }, { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.9", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "382 S.E.2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "748" }, { "page": "748" }, { "page": "748" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491345 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" }, { "page": "253" }, { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798953 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 558", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572766 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(al)" }, { "page": "(al)" }, { "parenthetical": "a" }, { "page": "(al)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9005714 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 285", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527949 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8915771 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E.2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624967 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575673 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654", "parenthetical": "invalidating family-owned vehicle exclusion to uninsured motorist coverage because section 20-279.21(b) mandated a minimum amount of coverage" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 6057222 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "685-86", "parenthetical": "invalidating family-owned vehicle exclusion to uninsured motorist coverage because section 20-279.21(b) mandated a minimum amount of coverage" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 S.E.2d 895", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2531661 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "121", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511376 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(2)" }, { "page": "(b)", "parenthetical": "$30/$60/$25" }, { "page": "(b)(2)" }, { "page": "(j)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.9", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 8, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(al)" }, { "page": "(al)" }, { "page": "(a) and (al)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(al)" }, { "page": "(al)" }, { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 905, "char_count": 25063, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8651142789705816e-07, "percentile": 0.8421697558429082 }, "sha256": "769c5892774b8d6e1ebed56a90efeb4ff2bc506fc37011427c75469f6b5f80ef", "simhash": "1:111bf53461bf7440", "word_count": 4006 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:54.793724+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUDSON concurs.", "Judge HUNTER dissents in a separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, JR., TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, SR., Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., RAMONA ARMWOOD, Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., JIMMY LEE BEST, and STELLA H. BOSTIC, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nNorth Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. (\u201cFarm Bureau\u201d) appeals from an order granting summary judgment entered in favor of defendants on the issue of the minimum amount of liability coverage required in an insurance policy for a not-for-hire commercial vehicle. We affirm.\nOn 7 October 2001, eight-year-old Terry Davis Armwood, Jr. (\u201cT.J.\u201d) was injured when he was struck by a vehicle after exiting a 1974, 30-passenger bus owned and operated by Jimmy Lee Best (\u201cBest\u201d) and insured by a policy issued by Farm Bureau. Best purchased the policy on 4 June 2001 from Stella Bostic (\u201cBostic\u201d). When Bostic sold the policy to Best, she offered liability amounts providing $750,000.00 in coverage per accident with $5,000.00 for medical payments per accident and Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage of $750,000.00. When Best refused the amounts offered, Bostic crossed through the original liability amounts and changed the policy limits to $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 per accident, $1,000 for medical payments, and Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage of $50,000/$100,000/$25,000, per Best\u2019s request.\nAfter the accident, Terry Davis Armwood, Sr. and Ramona Armwood (collectively \u201cthe Armwoods\u201d) filed a claim with Farm Bureau on behalf of their son, T.J. Farm Bureau offered to settle the claim for $50,000.00, the limit of Best\u2019s insurance policy. The Armwoods rejected Farm Bureau\u2019s settlement offer and demanded damages in excess of the $50,000.00 policy limit. On 30 October 2003, Farm Bureau filed a declaratory relief action requesting the Wake County Superior Court to determine the scope and amount of coverage provided by Farm Bureau under the policy for any damages caused by the 7 October 2001 accident. Farm Bureau, the Armwoods, and Bostic filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted Bostic\u2019s summary judgment motion dismissing all claims against her. The court also granted the Armwoods\u2019 summary judgment motion to the extent that the insurance policy was \u201creformed\u201d to reflect a minimum coverage of $750,000.00 and denied Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Farm Bureau appeals the order granting summary judgment in favor of the Armwoods- and denying Farm Bureau\u2019s summary judgment motion. We affirm.\nOur standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Stafford v. County of Bladen, 163 N.C. App. 149, 151, 592 S.E.2d 711, 713 (2004), appeal dismissed by, 358 N.C. 545, 599 S.E.2d 409 (2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Leake v. Sunbelt, Ltd. of Raleigh, 93 N.C. App. 199, 201, 377 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1989). \u201c[I]n considering summary judgment motions, we review the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant.\u201d Id. \u201cWhen the facts of a case are undisputed, construction and application of an insurance policy\u2019s provisions to those facts is a question of law.\u201d McGuire v. Draughon, 170 N.C. App. 422, 424, 612 S.E.2d 428, 430 (2005).\nThis case presents an issue of first impression: When a passenger bus transports passengers without requiring payment for services, should the insured or the insurer bear the responsibility of including the minimum statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) in the liability policy if the bus is classified as a not-for-hire commercial vehicle?\nFarm Bureau contends the owner is responsible for ensuring that liability coverage meets the minimum statutory requirements. Farm Bureau argues that because N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) specifically states that the owner shall have financial responsibility, -it is on the owner of a vehicle to obtain the appropriate level of liability insurance. The Armwoods contend that Best charged money to transport children in addition to the use of the bus for church purposes and therefore, the mandatory coverage for the bus was the coverage required for a passenger bus for-hire and should have exceeded $750,000.00.\nThe basic rule of statutory interpretation is that the intent of the Legislature controls. Campbell v. First Baptist Church, 298 N.C. 476, 484, 259 S.E.2d 558, 564 (1979). This intent may be determined by considering the language of the statute, the spirit of the act, and what the act seeks to accomplish. Taylor v. Taylor, 343 N.C. 50, 56, 468 S.E.2d 33, 37 (1996). \u201cThe purpose of [The Financial Responsibility Act of 1957] is to assure the protection of liability insurance, or other type[s] of established financial responsibility, up to the minimum amount specified in the act, to persons injured by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State.\u201d Pearson v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 325 N.C. 246, 253, 382 S.E.2d 745, 748 (1989). In order to effectuate the purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act of 1957, \u201cthe provisions [of the Act] must be read into insurance policies and [must be] construed liberally.\u201d Id.\nSection 20-309 of the North Carolina General Statutes addresses the financial responsibility required for registration of vehicles. It reads in pertinent part:\n(a) No motor vehicle shall be registered in this State unless the owner at the time of registration has financial responsibility for the operation of such motor vehicle, as provided in this Article. The owner of each motor vehicle registered in this State shall maintain financial responsibility continuously throughout the period of registration.\n(al) An owner of a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(3d), shall have financial responsibility for the operation of the motor vehicle in an amount equal to that required for for-hire carriers transporting nonhazardous property in interstate or foreign commerce in 49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.9.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309 (a) and (al) (2005). Under \u00a7 20-309(a), an owner of a vehicle may not register the vehicle unless the owner has an insurance policy or another type of financial responsibility in place that meets the minimum liability coverage as required by \u00a7 20-279.1. Our Courts have consistently held that the minimum liability coverage required by \u00a7 20-279.1 is \u201cwritten into every insurance policy as a matter of law.\u201d Integon Indemnity Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 342 N.C. 166, 168, 463 S.E.2d 389, 390-91 (1995); McCleod v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 115 N.C. App. 283, 287, 444 S.E.2d 487, 490 (1994). Thus, even though \u00a7 20-309(a) requires the owner to obtain financial responsibility in order to register a vehicle, the owner is not responsible for ensuring that the insurance policy contains the minimum liability coverage imposed by statute. The minimum liability coverage is written into each insurance policy as a matter of law. Similarly, \u00a7 20-309(al) requires the owner of a not-for-hire commercial vehicle to obtain an insurance policy or other financial responsibility in order to register the vehicle. It follows that just as the minimum liability coverage requirements for vehicles registered under \u00a7 20-309(a) are written into insurance policies as a matter of law, so too are the minimum liability coverage requirements for not-for-hire commercial vehicles registered under \u00a7 20-309(al). In effect, this does not place a burden on either party to ensure that liability coverage meets the minimum statutory requirements, but it inserts the provisions of \u00a7 20-309(al), as a matter of law, into every insurance policy issued for not-for-hire commercial vehicles. See Integon, 342 N.C. at 168, 463 S.E.2d at 390-91; McCleod, 115 N.C. App. at 287, 444 S.E.2d at 490. Further, writing the minimum liability coverage into insurance policies for vehicles registered under \u00a7 20-309(al) as a matter of law promotes the main purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act \u2014 protecting innocent motorists. See Pearson, 325 N.C. at 253, 382 S.E.2d at 748.\nFarm Bureau argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 62-268, which pertains to for-hire commercial vehicles, specifically provides that liability coverage may be obtained through multiple insurance policies. Farm Bureau further argues that because \u00a7 62-268 and \u00a7 20-309(al) pertain to commercial vehicles and the only factor that determines which statute applies is whether the commercial vehicle is used for hire, the two statutes should be construed together. Thus, Farm Bureau argues, \u00a7 20-309(al) allows the owner of a not-for-hire commercial vehicle to obtain the required financial responsibility through multiple insurance policies thereby placing the responsibility to ensure that the minimum coverage has been obtained upon the owner. We disagree.\nBasic canons of statutory interpretation provide that \u201c[sjtatutes in pari materia are to be construed together, and it is a general rule that the courts must harmonize such statutes, if possible, and give effect to each . . . .\u201d Faizan v. Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 47, 53, 118 S.E.2d 303, 307 (1961). \u201c[A]ll applicable laws on the same subject matter should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious body of legislation, if possible.\u201d Id.\nSection 20-279.21 is part of the Financial Responsibility Act of 1953, and \u00a7 20-309(al) is part of the Financial Responsibility Act of 1957. Both acts pertain to the same subject matter \u2014 the financial responsibility of motorists. Thus, \u201c[t]he two acts are to be construed together so as to harmonize their provisions and to effectuate the purpose of the Legislature.\u201d Harrelson v. Insurance Co., 272 N.C. 603, 610, 158 S.E.2d 812, 818 (1968). See also, Odum v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 101 N.C. App. 627, 631, 401 S.E.2d 87, 90 (1991) (\u201cThe two Acts are complementary and are to be construed in pari materia so as to harmonize them and give effect to both.\u201d).\nIn sharp contrast to Farm Bureau\u2019s argument, \u00a7 62-268 is found under chapter 62 \u2014 a chapter devoted to an entirely different body of law. Chapter 62 regulates public utilities and contains specific provisions for motor carriers. If the Legislature intended for statutes concerning not-for-hire commercial vehicles to be interpreted in conjunction with statutes concerning for-hire vehicles, it could have included the statutes in the same chapter or referenced the provisions of \u00a7 62-268.\nTherefore, because \u00a7 20-279.21 and \u00a7 20-309 have an identical purpose \u2014 protecting the innocent from irresponsible drivers \u2014 it is proper that these statutes are interpreted in a consistent manner in order to give effect to the intent and purpose of the Legislature. Construing these statutes in pari materia, we hold that just as provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 are read into every insurance policy as a matter of law, provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) \u00e1re also read into every insurance policy as a matter of law. This is to effectuate the purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act \u2014 protecting the innocent from irresponsible motorists. See Pearson, 325 N.C. at 253, 382 S.E.2d at 748.\nWe have considered Farm Bureau\u2019s remaining arguments and determined they are without merit. The trial court properly granted the Armwoods\u2019 summary judgment motion to the extent that it reformed the insurance policy to include the amount of minimum coverage required by \u00a7 20-309(al), and it properly denied Farm Bureau\u2019s summary judgment motion. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUDSON concurs.\nJudge HUNTER dissents in a separate opinion.\nThe Judges participated in this decision and submitted it for filing prior to 1 January 2007.\n. Defendants-appellees asserted during oral arguments that Farm Bureau had issued an MCS-90 Form along with Best\u2019s insurance policy. However, this issue was not addressed in defendants-appellees\u2019 brief and therefore, will not be considered.", "type": "majority", "author": "CALABRIA, Judge." }, { "text": "HUNTER, Judge,\ndissenting.\nBecause I disagree with the majority\u2019s holding that provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) should be read into every liability insurance policy on commercial vehicles as a matter of law, I respectfully dissent.\nBest purchased a thirty-passenger bus for use in transporting members of his church. In June 2001, he went to plaintiff, an insurer, for liability insurance on the vehicle and was offered an application for a policy containing $750,000.00 in coverage, which he declined. Best then selected the amount of coverage himself \u2014 $50,000.00 per person and $100,000.00 per accident \u2014 -and plaintiff issued a policy in those amounts. Best paid the premiums for the policy and was covered by it in October 2001, when he was involved in the accident at the root of this case in which Terry Armwood, Jr., was injured. Plaintiff sought a declaratory injunction from the trial court that the policy provided coverage of $50,000.00 per person and $100,000.00 per accident, as the policy stated on its face. The Armwoods sought a declaration that the policy provided coverage of $750,000.00. Based on its interpretation of the relevant statutes, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s motion and concluded that the policy should be reformed to provide coverage of $750,000.00.\n\u201cThe primary goal of statutory construction is to effectuate the purpose of the legislature in enacting the statute[,]\u201d and that purpose \u201c \u2018is first ascertained by examining the statute\u2019s plain language.\u2019 \u201d Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington, 356 N.C. 571, 574, 573 S.E.2d 118, 121 (2002) (citation omitted). When that language is \u201c \u2018 \u201cclear and unambiguous,\u201d \u2019 \u201d the court is \u201c \u2018 \u201cwithout power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.\u201d \u2019 \u201d Id. at 575, 573 S.E.2d at 121 (citations omitted).\nIn general, insurance policies must be reformed when an applicable statute conflicts with the terms of the insurance policy; at that point, \u201cthe provisions of that statute become terms of the policy to the same extent as if they were written in it[.]\u201d Baxley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 334 N.C. 1, 6, 430 S.E.2d 895, 898 (1993). However, our Supreme Court has only reformed policies in cases where an insurer failed to comply with a requirement of the 1953 Act that places a direct burden on the insurer arid policy, not the owner. See, e.g., Bray v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 341 N.C. 678, 685-86, 462 S.E.2d 650, 654 (1995) (invalidating family-owned vehicle exclusion to uninsured motorist coverage because section 20-279.21(b) mandated a minimum amount of coverage). \u201cIn the absence of any provision in the Financial Responsibility Act broadening the liability of the insurer, such liability must be measured by the terms of the policy as written.\u201d Younts v. Insurance Co., 281 N.C. 582, 585, 189 S.E.2d 137, 139 (1972).\nAs discussed below, in this case the terms of the policy do not conflict with the statute, because it is not the individual policy that must comply with the minimum requirements but rather the insured\u2019s overall coverage. As such, this Court should measure plaintiff\u2019s liability by the terms of the policy as written. Although such a result might not result in the complete protection of individuals from the risks associated with commercial vehicles, that issue is properly addressed by the legislature, not by this Court.\nTwo statutes are at issue in this case: the Vehicle Finaricial Responsibility Act of 1957 (\u201c1957 Act\u201d) and the Financial Responsibility Act of 1953 (\u201c1953 Act\u201d). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) (2005), part of the 1957 Act, by its plain language puts the onus on owners to maintain required liability insurance on their vehicles: \u201cAn owner of a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(3d), shall have financial responsibility for the operation of the motor vehicle in an amount equal to that required for for-hire carriers transporting nonhazardous property in interstate or foreign commerce in 49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.9.\u201d Id. (emphasis added).\nThe 1953 Act specifically addresses individual policies rather than individual owners. It states that every owner\u2019s policy of liability insurance shall provide the following minimum coverage against loss from liability \u201cfor damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use\u201d for the covered vehicle: $30,000.00 for injury or death to one person, $60,000.00 to two or more persons in one accident, and $25,000.00 for injury or destruction of property in one accident ($30/$60/$25). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(2) (2005). The plain lan-' guage of the statute itself actually inserts these specific amounts into every policy as a matter of law.\nBecause both acts have the same general purpose \u2014 namely, protecting the innocent from irresponsible drivers \u2014 the two should be read in conjunction, as the majority notes. \u201cStatutes in pari ma-teria are to be construed together, and it is a general rule that the courts must harmonize such statutes, if possible, and give effect to each[.]\u201d Blowing Rock v. Gregorie, 243 N.C. 364, 371, 90 S.E.2d 898, 904 (1956).\nHowever, the majority\u2019s holding reads the Acts together to create a mandate by the 1953 Act (which explicitly sets out the $30/$60/$25 minimums) that plaintiff\u2019s policy provide coverage in the amount specified by the 1957 Act ($750,000.00). This controverts the plain language of the two provisions of the 1957 Act at issue. Again, the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(a) and (al) both put the onus on the owner. (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(a) states: \u201cNo motor vehicle shall be registered in this State unless the owner at the time of registration has financial responsibility for the operation of such motor vehicle, as provided in this Article.\u201d) Reading the two Acts in conjunction cannot mean eliminating this plain language by \u201csuper-imposfing]\u201d in the 1957 Act the language of the 1953 Act placing the onus on the insurer.\nThe trial court itself stated that:\nBest, as the owner of the 1974 30 passenger bus, a commercial motor vehicle, had the duty and responsibility to obtain the applicable minimum liability coverage for the vehicle. G.S. 20-309(al) places the duty to obtain and maintain the appropriate coverage, consistent with the use of the commercial vehicle, on the owner.\nThis conclusion of law explicitly looks to the 1957 Act and places the duty and responsibility for obtaining the correct minimum liability coverage on Best. Despite its own conclusion, however, the trial court then found that plaintiff had a duty to issue the policy for $750,000.00 and reformed the existing policy to reflect that level of liability. This finding incorrectly holds plaintiff responsible for the duty and responsibility the trial court had laid at Best\u2019s door.\nFurther, I see no statutory justification for the majority\u2019s holding that we must read a minimum $750,000.00 clause into this contract. As the majority states, our Courts have consistently held that the minimum coverage required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b) ($30/$60/$25) is written into every insurance policy as a matter of law. But note the plain language of this statute:\n(b) [Each] owner\u2019s policy of liability insurance:\n. . .\n(2) Shall insure the person named therein ... against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages . . . with respect to each such motor vehicle [] as follows: thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to said limit for one person, sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(2). The statute, unlike N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al), specifically addresses an element that every policy must contain. Clearly, legislative intent was that this statute should act to reform any policy that was not in line with these statutory minimums ($30/$60/$25). As mentioned, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(al) sets out the minimum liability insurance responsibility of the owner of a commercial vehicle. Had the legislature intended this particular provision to reform all policies not in line with the minimums set out for commer: cial vehicles ($750,000.00), it could easily have done so by adding to section 20-309(al) similar construction and language as that used by section 20-279.21(b)(2) requiring all policies to have the $30/$60/$25 minimum. Had the legislature intended this reformation, it could also have simply amended section 20-279.21(b) in the 1953 Act with such language, inserting in all commercial vehicle policies the $750,000.00 minimum requirement. Since the legislature did neither, this Court should not impose such a requirement.\nDefendants further argue that the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(b) indicates that only one policy may be used to meet the minimum coverage (\u201c[f]inancial responsibility shall be a liability insurance policy . . .\u201d (emphasis added)), agreeing with the trial court\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s issuance of a policy below statutory minimums ($750,000.00) was .an \u201cinvalid and inappropriate choice[.]\u201d However, the 1953 Act, with which this statute must be read in conjunction, allows a commercial vehicle owner to meet the requirements of liability coverage \u201cby the policies of one or more insurance carriers which policies together meet such requirements.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(j). Thus, again, the onus is placed on Best, not plaintiff, to obtain the appropriate minimum coverage.\nDefendants also argue that, because the Farm Bureau policy did not meet the statutory minimums, Best would not have been able to register his motor vehicle (\u201c[n]o motor vehicle shall be registered in this State unless the owner at the time of registration has financial responsibility for the operation of such motor vehicle\u201d). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-309(a). This argument fails because, again, Best could have obtained the statutory minimum of coverage from multiple insurers. The record does not indicate that plaintiff issued a policy that falsely stated the amount of Best\u2019s coverage or inappropriately certified Best for registration purposes; any error in registering the vehicle made by the State cannot be laid at plaintiff\u2019s feet.\nIn sum, the majority\u2019s holding puts an onus on insurance companies that I do not believe is warranted by the statutes. The plain language of the 1957 Act places on the owner the onus for ensuring that minimum statutory requirements for liability insurance are met.\nThis Court should not disturb the contract between the parties and the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. If the legislature had intended for commercial vehicles to be covered by only one liability insurance policy with a minimum coverage of $750,000.00, it could easily have done so.\nIt is important to note that the legislature\u2019s purpose in creating these Acts was clearly to protect the public by having higher mandatory minimum liability insurance coverage for commercial vehicles because the potential for damage to property \"and individuals is higher. However, the legislature addressed that concern by putting the onus for obtaining adequate coverage on the owner. In this particular case, unfortunately, that purpose was not effected, but it is the legislature\u2019s provenance to correct this problem; it is not for the courts to impose a correction.\nI would reverse the trial court\u2019s order partially granting the Armwoods\u2019 motion for summary judgment because, based on the applicable statutes comprising the 1953 and 1957 Acts, it was error for the trial court to reform the insurance policy at issue to reflect $750,000.00 in liability coverage. Further, since Best had no obligation to purchase his entire minimum coverage from one insurer, and plaintiff had no obligation to issue a policy for the statutory minimum, I would reverse and remand the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment.", "type": "dissent", "author": "HUNTER, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Young, Moore & Henderson P.A., by R. Michael Strickland and Glenn C. Raynor, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Law Offices of Frank A. Cassiano, by John K. Bramble and Frank A. Cassiano, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff v. TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, JR., TERRY DAVIS ARMWOOD, SR., Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., RAMONA ARMWOOD, Individually and As Parent and Guardian for Terry Davis Armwood, Jr., JIMMY LEE BEST, and STELLA H. BOSTIC, Defendants\nNo. COA06-176\n(Filed 16 January 2007)\nInsurance\u2014 not-for-hire commercial vehicle \u2014 minimum amounts \u2014 read into policy\nThe provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-309(al) are inserted into every insurance policy issued for not-for-hire commercial vehicles. The trial court here did not err by granting summary judgment against the insurer in an action involving an injury suffered by a child as he left a church bus, so that the policy was reformed to include that statutory minimum coverage of $750,000.00.\nJudge Hunter dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 13 July 2005 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September 2006.\nYoung, Moore & Henderson P.A., by R. Michael Strickland and Glenn C. Raynor, for plaintiff-appellant.\nLaw Offices of Frank A. Cassiano, by John K. Bramble and Frank A. Cassiano, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0407-01", "first_page_order": 439, "last_page_order": 449 }