{ "id": 8204230, "name": "FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT BEDDARD a/k/a ROOSEVELT BEDDARD and LOIS EDWARD BEDDARD, Plaintiffs v. MELISSA LAURIN McDANIEL, JONATHAN MARK COOK, and UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Beddard v. McDaniel", "decision_date": "2007-06-05", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1039", "first_page": "476", "last_page": "480", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "183 N.C. App. 476" } ], "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": "116 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 149, 400 S.E.2d 44, 50 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "50" }, { "page": "50" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2542714 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149" }, { "page": "149" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42", "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citations omitted" }, { "page": "671" }, { "page": "671", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 149, 400 S.E.2d 44, 50 (1991)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12125974 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41-43" }, { "page": "42", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "quotation omitted" }, { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795937 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495-97" }, { "page": "496" }, { "page": "497" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "913" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8914953 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11470258 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0729-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 492, "char_count": 9657, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08, "percentile": 0.30850756163776344 }, "sha256": "015eff7dbde578857aba5be7ccd815341eeae7ee5942895403215c2d256cc24a", "simhash": "1:1d17057e44baa27a", "word_count": 1559 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:58.512650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT BEDDARD a/k/a ROOSEVELT BEDDARD and LOIS EDWARD BEDDARD, Plaintiffs v. MELISSA LAURIN McDANIEL, JONATHAN MARK COOK, and UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nIn North Carolina, insurance coverage for damages caused by uninsured and underinsured motorists \u201cfollows the person, not the vehicle,\u201d such that an \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion will not apply if the individuals injured in a collision are the named insureds in the policy. Here, we find that the plaintiffs were the \u201cnamed insureds\u201d and therefore conclude that the \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion does not apply. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.\nOn the evening of 15 May 2001, Defendant Melissa Laurin McDaniel made a left turn from a public driveway in order to travel northwest on U.S. Highway 258. After crossing the oncoming southeasterly lanes and the center turn lane, her vehicle collided with the vehicle of Plaintiffs Franklin Roosevelt Beddard and Lois Edward Beddard, who were already traveling northwest on U.S. Highway 258. Following the accident, the Beddards filed a complaint against Ms. McDaniel for recovery of damages due to the injuries sustained by Mr. Beddard in the collision and for Ms. Beddard\u2019s loss of consortium with her husband. As part of that cause of action, the Beddards also sought a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under their insurance policy with Defendant Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal Insurance).\nAs provided by the policy, endorsements, North Carolina state amendatory part, and declarations, the relevant portions of the UIM Coverage Part of the Beddards\u2019 insurance policy with Universal Insurance read as follows:\n. . . WE will pay all sums the INSURED is legally entitled to recover as compensatory DAMAGES from the owner or driver of an UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE. . . .\nDEFINITIONS \u2014 When used in this Coverage Part:\n\u201cCOVERED AUTO\u201d means any land motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer designed for travel on public roads which is insured by this Coverage Part and shown on the declarations.\n\u201cOWNED AUTO\u201d MEANS AN AUTO YOU OWN OR LEASE AND IS SCHEDULED IN THE DECLARATIONS, ANY AUTO YOU PURCHASE OR LEASE AND ITS REPLACEMENT DURING THE COVERAGE PART PERIOD. . . . [Endorsement 203]\nWHO IS AN INSURED \u2014 -With respect to this Coverage Part, the individual (and any FAMILY MEMBER) designated on the declarations as subject to this endorsement and any passengers in a COVERED AUTO driven by the designated individual. [Endorsement 092]\nEXCLUSIONS \u2014 -This Insurance does not apply\n(d) BODILY INJURY sustained by:\na. YOU while OCCUPYING or when struck by any vehicle owned by YOU that is not a covered AUTO for Uninsured Motorists Coverage under this Coverage Form.\n[N.C. State Amendatory Page 2-F]\nThe three \u201cDesignated Individuals\u201d named on the Elective Options Form for UIM coverage are Roosevelt and Evelyn Beddard and Chris Davis Beddard. The Name of Insured, as written on that form, is Beddard\u2019s Affordable Tire & Auto.\nOn 16 September 2005, Universal Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment against the Beddards, who filed a response to the motion on 24 February 2006. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 30 March 2006 denying Universal Insurance\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The trial court then entered an amended order on 30 May 2006, which again denied Universal Insurance\u2019s motion for summary judgment and also granted summary judgment to the Beddards, concluding as a matter of law that they are entitled to UIM coverage under their Universal Insurance policy.\nUniversal Insurance entered timely notice of appeal from the 30 March and 30 May orders, arguing to this Court that the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary judgment and by granting summary judgment to the Beddards. Universal Insurance specifically contends that the Beddards\u2019 insurance policy excluded UIM coverage for the injuries they sustained in the 15 May 2001 accident because they were not driving a \u201ccovered auto\u201d within the meaning of the policy at the time of the collision. We disagree.\nSummary judgment is properly granted when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact. See Bruce-Terminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998) (citation omitted); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 162 N.C. App. 100, 102, 589 S.E.2d 911, 913 (2004). When reviewing the evidence, this Court must view it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.\nIn Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Mabe, our Supreme Court affirmed this Court\u2019s earlier ruling that an \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion in the UIM section of a business vehicle insurance policy, which \u201cpurports to deny UIM coverage to a family member injured while in a family-owned vehicle not listed in the policy at issue,\u201d violates Section 20-279.21(b)(4) of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act. 342 N.C. 482, 495-97, 467 S.E.2d 34, 41-43 (1996), aff'g 115 N.C. App. 193, 444 S.E.2d 664 (1994). The statute recognizes two classes of \u201cpersons insured\u201d: \u201c(1) the named insured and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of the named insured and relatives of either and (2) any person who uses with the consent, express or implied, of the named insured, the insured vehicle, and a guest in such vehicle.\u201d Id. at 495-96, 444 S.E.2d at 42 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (2005).\nThus, as noted by this Court and our Supreme Court, \u201cUM/UIM coverage follows the person, not the vehicle.\u201d Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 149, 400 S.E.2d 44, 50 (1991); Mabe, 115 N.C. App. at 204, 444 S.E.2d at 671. As such,\nMembers of the first class are \u201cpersons insured\u201d for the purposes of UIM coverage where the insured vehicle is not involved in the insured\u2019s injuries. Members of the second class are \u201cpersons insured\u201d for the purposes of UIM coverage only when the insured vehicle is involved in the insured\u2019s injuries.\nMabe, 342 N.C. at 496, 467 S.E.2d at 42 (internal citations omitted).\nHere, as in Mabe, the Beddards were driving a vehicle not listed in their Universal Insurance insurance policy at the time of the collision with Ms. McDaniel, the underinsured motorist. Universal Insurance argues, however, that Mabe should not control in this case because the insurance policy was taken to cover Beddard\u2019s Affordable Tire & Auto and, as such, was intended to protect their corporate used car business rather than from all lawsuits. They contend that the \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion would therefore not be in violation of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act and should be applied to bar the Beddards from the UIM coverage.\nWe find this argument to be without merit. Again, our Supreme Court has expressly held that UIM coverage follows the person, not the vehicle. The Beddards were named as \u201cdesignated individuals\u201d on the Elective Options Form for UIM coverage; as such, and as conceded by Universal Insurance in its brief, they qualify under Endorsement 092 of the policy as \u201cnamed insureds\u201d for the UIM Coverage Part. The facts and holding of Mabe are thus squarely on point. In light of the purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act \u201cto allow an insured injured party to recover damages when the tortfeasor has insurance, but his coverage is in an amount insufficient to compensate fully the party,\u201d id. (quotation omitted), we see no reason to make an exception and allow the \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion to apply simply because Universal Insurance believes the Beddards purchased insurance for a different reason than what the policy expressly protects them against and for which they paid additional premiums.\nAccordingly, we conclude that the trial court acted properly in granting summary judgment to the Beddards.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur.\n. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 116 N.C. App. 193, 204, 444 S.E.2d 664, 671 (1994) (quoting Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 149, 400 S.E.2d 44, 50 (1991)), aff\u2019d, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996).\n. Mabe, 342 N.C. at 497, 467 S.E.2d at 43.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Barber Law Firm, P.A., by Timothy G. Barber, for plaintiffs-appellees.", "Wallace, Morris, Barwick, Landis & Stroud, P.A., by PC. Barwick, Jr. and Kimberly Connor Benton, for defendants-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT BEDDARD a/k/a ROOSEVELT BEDDARD and LOIS EDWARD BEDDARD, Plaintiffs v. MELISSA LAURIN McDANIEL, JONATHAN MARK COOK, and UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, defendants\nNo. COA06-1039\n(Filed 5 June 2007)\nInsurance\u2014 business vehicle policy \u2014 injury while driving personal vehicle \u2014 UIM coverage \u2014 policy endorsement\nPlaintiffs were entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under a business vehicle policy even though they were driving an automobile not listed in the policy at the time of an accident because: (1) plaintiffs were named as \u201cdesignated individuals\u201d on the Elective Options Form for UIM coverage and, as such, qualified under an endorsement of the policy as \u201cnamed insureds\u201d for the UIM coverage part of the policy; (2) UIM coverage follows the person and not the vehicle; and (3) the \u201cowned vehicle\u201d exclusion of the policy does not apply when the persons injured in a collision are named insureds in the policy.\nAppeal by defendants from orders entered 30 March 2006 and 30 May 2006 by Judge Russell J. Lanier, Jr. in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 March 2007.\nThe Barber Law Firm, P.A., by Timothy G. Barber, for plaintiffs-appellees.\nWallace, Morris, Barwick, Landis & Stroud, P.A., by PC. Barwick, Jr. and Kimberly Connor Benton, for defendants-appellants." }, "file_name": "0476-01", "first_page_order": 508, "last_page_order": 512 }