{
  "id": 8209557,
  "name": "JACINDA BURTON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL C. BURTON, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants; DONNA DAVIS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES M. DAVIS, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burton v. Phoenix Fabricators & Erectors, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2007-08-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA06-1195",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. App. 303"
    }
  ],
  "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": "621 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634281,
        12634282,
        12634283
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/621/0176-01",
        "/se2d/621/0176-02",
        "/se2d/621/0176-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "614 S.E.2d 599",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633186
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "601"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/614/0599-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "622 S.E.2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634539,
        12634540,
        12634541
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/622/0626-01",
        "/se2d/622/0626-02",
        "/se2d/622/0626-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "615 S.E.2d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633261
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "321"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/615/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "611 S.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632656,
        12632654,
        12632655
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/611/0417-03",
        "/se2d/611/0417-01",
        "/se2d/611/0417-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795617,
        3796867,
        3801443,
        3801157,
        12632651,
        12632653,
        12632655,
        3799888,
        12632656,
        12632657,
        3803351,
        3797305
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0322-02",
        "/nc/359/0322-05",
        "/nc/359/0322-01",
        "/nc/359/0322-07",
        "/se2d/611/0416-01",
        "/se2d/611/0416-03",
        "/se2d/611/0417-02",
        "/nc/359/0322-04",
        "/se2d/611/0417-03",
        "/se2d/611/0418-01",
        "/nc/359/0322-03",
        "/nc/359/0322-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "643 S.E.2d 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638095
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569",
          "parenthetical": "permitting interlocutory appeal when order denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affected first amendment right to freedom of religion"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/643/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3788768,
        3797185,
        3792645,
        3792391,
        3791370,
        3790892,
        3791181,
        3789709,
        3794291,
        3790036,
        3789205,
        3788855
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0479-05",
        "/nc/360/0060-05",
        "/nc/360/0068-02",
        "/nc/360/0060-06",
        "/nc/360/0060-08",
        "/nc/360/0060-02",
        "/nc/360/0060-04",
        "/nc/360/0060-09",
        "/nc/360/0060-01",
        "/nc/360/0060-07",
        "/nc/360/0060-03",
        "/nc/360/0490-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8436507
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/171/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3792929,
        3788866,
        3790212,
        3789894,
        3791562,
        3791637,
        3788407,
        3796378,
        3797567
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0073-04",
        "/nc/360/0073-05",
        "/nc/360/0073-07",
        "/nc/360/0073-08",
        "/nc/360/0073-06",
        "/nc/360/0073-09",
        "/nc/360/0073-02",
        "/nc/360/0073-01",
        "/nc/360/0073-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8438878
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "638-39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/171/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "494 S.E.2d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551237,
        551147,
        551116,
        551226,
        551357
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0398-05",
        "/nc/347/0398-03",
        "/nc/347/0398-04",
        "/nc/347/0398-02",
        "/nc/347/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 S.E.2d 635",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "638"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11794271
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/127/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "535 S.E.2d 397",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "401",
          "parenthetical": "holding that an interlocutory \"order denying a party's motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitation does not effect [sic] a substantial right and is therefore not appealable\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N.C. App. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12122361
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "121",
          "parenthetical": "holding that an interlocutory \"order denying a party's motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitation does not effect [sic] a substantial right and is therefore not appealable\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/140/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "556 S.E.2d 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37"
        },
        {
          "page": "37"
        },
        {
          "page": "37-38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9380469
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "519"
        },
        {
          "page": "520"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/147/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "606 S.E.2d 449",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "452"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N.C. App. 763",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8414195
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "768"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/167/0763-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "588 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "497"
        },
        {
          "page": "497",
          "parenthetical": "holding that \"avoidance of a trial, no matter how tedious or unnecessary, is not a substantial right entitling an appellant to immediate review\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8958957
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "522"
        },
        {
          "page": "522"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "512 S.E.2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "785",
          "parenthetical": "recognizing \"that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to warrant immediate appellate review\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11239233
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "558-59",
          "parenthetical": "recognizing \"that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to warrant immediate appellate review\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ind. Code Ann. \u00a7 22-3-2-6",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ind. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 S.E.2d 259",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "262"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11433839
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3738344
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269",
          "parenthetical": "permitting interlocutory appeal when order denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affected first amendment right to freedom of religion"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 S.E.2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246",
          "parenthetical": "holding that \"the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11433311
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "100",
          "parenthetical": "holding that \"the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "184",
          "parenthetical": "approving Shaver"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568484
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327",
          "parenthetical": "approving Shaver"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 S.E.2d 526",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N.C. App. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523577
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "487"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/54/0486-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 670,
    "char_count": 13100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.739,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.108286470890255e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4678326805925751
    },
    "sha256": "3c1abf16b9e8c5099183ba35f7bb9b25fc42a933ca54065ac44fc50ad49db72d",
    "simhash": "1:0f69e63ec0689c7d",
    "word_count": 2104
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:26.584781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JACINDA BURTON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL C. BURTON, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants DONNA DAVIS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES M. DAVIS, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GEER, Judge.\nDefendant Phoenix Fabricators and Erectors, Inc. (\u201cPhoenix\u201d) appeals from the denial of its Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the complaints of plaintiffs Jacinda Burton and Donna Davis, alleging negligence in the death of their husbands while working for Phoenix in North Carolina. Phoenix acknowledges that the order below is interlocutory, but nonetheless argues that immediate appellate review is justified based on the \u201cexclusive remedy\u201d workers\u2019 compensation statute of the State of Indiana. Although Phoenix claims that the Indiana statute grants them \u201cimmunity from suit,\u201d our appellate courts have held, when considering other analogous circumstances, that a mere desire to avoid trial does not give rise to a substantial right justifying an interlocutory appeal. We, therefore, dismiss Phoenix\u2019s appeal.\nFacts\nMichael Burton and Charles Davis, plaintiffs\u2019 decedents, were killed on 30 October 2002 while they were helping to construct an elevated water storage tank on property owned by Granville County. Both men were employees of Phoenix. On 10 June 2004, Jacinda Burton, the Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Burton, and Donna Davis, the Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Davis, filed companion tort actions against three defendants: Phoenix, the employer; Granville County, the property owner; and Davis, Martin, Powell & Associates, Inc., one of the project\u2019s contractors.\nAccording to plaintiffs, their husbands were assigned to work on the exterior of the water tower at a height over 80 feet above the ground without having any \u201cfall arrest protection.\u201d While the two men were performing their work, a crane was hoisting a section of the structure into place. The crane failed, causing the load to collide with the completed portion of the tower and knocking the two men from the tower. They fell to the ground, suffering fatal injuries.\nAll defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Subsequently, Phoenix also filed a motion to dismiss both actions pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Judge W. Osmond Smith, III of Granville County Superior Court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of Granville County and Davis, Martin, Powell & Associates. He denied Phoenix\u2019s motions for summary judgment and for dismissal. Phoenix has appealed only from the orders denying its Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nDiscussion\nIt is well established in North Carolina that \u201c[a] trial judge\u2019s order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.\u201d Shaver v. N.C. Monroe Constr. Co., 54 N.C. App. 486, 487, 283 S.E.2d 526, 527 (1981). See also Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc., 306 N.C. 324, 327, 293 S.E.2d 182, 184 (1982) (approving Shaver); Data Gen. Corp. v. County of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97, 100, 545 S.E.2d 243, 246 (2001) (holding that \u201cthe denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\u201d). As our Supreme Court has recently acknowledged, however, interlocutory review of such an order nonetheless may be permissible if the appellant demonstrates that, under the circumstances of the particular case, the order affects a substantial right that would be jeopardized in the absence of review prior to a final determination on the merits. Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 269, 643 S.E.2d 566, 569 (2007) (permitting interlocutory appeal when order denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affected first amendment right to freedom of religion).\nPhoenix bears \u201c[t]he burden ... to establish that a substantial right will be affected unless [it] is allowed immediate appeal from an interlocutory order.\u201d Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C. App. 162, 166, 545 S.E.2d 259, 262 (2001). Phoenix points to the fact that it paid plaintiffs benefits under the Indiana Workers\u2019 Compensation Act and argues: \u201cIndiana law is absolutely clear that once an employee or his estate collects workers\u2019 compensation benefits, he or it relinquishes the option to pursue a civil action against the employer. Such a receipt of benefits . . . divests the Trial Court of subject matter jurisdiction.\u201d See Ind. Code Ann. \u00a7 22-3-2-6 (\u201cThe rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, the employee\u2019s personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death, except for remedies available under IC 6-2-6.1.\u201d).\nPhoenix contends that Indiana\u2019s \u201cexclusive remedy\u201d statute provides it with \u201cimmunity from suit\u201d and that, as a result, it is entitled to immediate review of the denial of its 12(b)(1) motion. Phoenix analogizes this claimed right to avoid suit to other rights this Court has already deemed sufficiently substantial to warrant immediate appellate review, such as when a trial court denies the defense of sovereign immunity. See Price v. Davis, 132 N.C. App. 556, 558-59, 512 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1999) (recognizing \u201cthat appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to warrant immediate appellate review\u201d).\nThis Court has, however, previously rejected similar attempts by appellants to cast their litigation defenses in the mold of an \u201cimmunity\u201d in order to obtain immediate appellate review of an adverse ruling. For example, in Allen v. Stone, 161 N.C. App. 519, 522, 588 S.E.2d 495, 497 (2003), the \u201cdefendant argue[d] the Rule 41(a)(1) two-dismissal rule creates a \u2018right to be free from the burdens of litigation\u2019 giving rise to a \u2018conditional immunity from suit,\u2019 such that denial of a motion to dismiss grounded on Rule 41(a)(1) likewise affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable.\u201d We expressly \u201cdecline[d] to adopt defendant\u2019s interpretation of Rule 41(a)(1) as creating a \u2018conditional immunity from suit\u2019 \u201d and held that we could \u201cdiscern no substantial right that would be affected absent immediate appellate review.\u201d Id. See also Robinson v. Gardner, 167 N.C. App. 763, 768, 606 S.E.2d 449, 452 (again rejecting argument that two-dismissal rule under Rule 41(a)(1) \u201ccreates a form of immunity that supports an interlocutory appeal\u201d), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 322, 611 S.E.2d 417 (2005).\nIn Lee v. Baxter, 147 N.C. App. 517, 519, 556 S.E.2d 36, 37 (2001), the appellant took a similar approach, \u201cargu[ing] that the statute of repose gives a defendant a \u2018vested right\u2019 not to be sued and is therefore similar to the defense of immunity, which is considered a substantial right.\u201d Again, we rejected the contention, noting that \u201c[u]nlike a claim for immunity, [the appellant\u2019s] right to raise the statute of repose defense will not be lost if we do not review the case prior to a final judgment since [the appellant] may raise the issue on appeal from a final judgment.\u201d Id. at 520, 556 S.E.2d at 37. See also Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 140 N.C. App. 115, 121, 535 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2000) (holding that an interlocutory \u201corder denying a party\u2019s motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitation does not effect [sic] a substantial right and is therefore not appealable\u201d). The Court in Lee continued: \u201cThe only loss [the appellant] will suffer will be the time and expense of trial. We note, however, that avoiding the time and expense of trial is not a substantial right justifying immediate appeal.\u201d 147 N.C. App. at 520, 556 S.E.2d at 37-38. See also Allen, 161 N.C. App. at 522, 588 S.E.2d at 497 (holding that \u201cavoidance of a trial, no matter how tedious or unnecessary, is not a substantial right entitling an appellant to immediate review\u201d).\nIn this case, we find that Phoenix\u2019s \u201cexclusive remedy\u201d defense under the Indiana Workers\u2019 Compensation Act is, with respect to an interlocutory appeal, materially indistinguishable from defenses based on the two-dismissal rule-or a statute of repose. Upon the trial court\u2019s final resolution of all of plaintiffs\u2019 claims, Phoenix will be entitled to appeal, if necessary, the issue it currently asks this Court to review. In the meantime, however, Phoenix\u2019s desire to avoid a trial on the merits does not warrant immediate appellate intervention \u201cno matter how tedious or unnecessary\u201d a trial may be. Id.\nPhoenix also points to decisions allowing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. See Futrelle v. Duke Univ., 127 N.C. App. 244, 247, 488 S.E.2d 635, 638 (recognizing that interlocutory order denying arbitration may be immediately appealed because it involves a substantial right that might be lost if appeal is delayed), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 398, 494 S.E.2d 412 (1997). Those decisions are, however, based on the public policy favoring arbitration and the fact that \u201cthe right to arbitration would effectively be lost if appeal is delayed\u201d until after the litigation was complete. Id. Here, an appeal following final judgment would still permit Phoenix to avoid liability to plaintiffs, a primary benefit of the \u201cexclusive remedy\u201d statute. This appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.\nAlternatively, Phoenix asks this Court to review the order below pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari under N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1). We note initially that Phoenix has not complied with the requirements for a petition for writ of certiorari set out in N.C.R. App. P. 21(c). See State v. McCoy, 171 N.C. App. 636, 638-39, 615 S.E.2d 319, 321 (refusing to review otherwise belated appeal pursuant to Rule 21 because request in footnote of appellant\u2019s brief that brief be treated as an alternative petition for writ of certiorari did not meet requirements of Rule 21(c)), appeal dismissed, 360 N.C. 73, 622 S.E.2d 626 (2005). Second, Phoenix has not pointed to any \u201cmanifest injustice\u201d or compelling need \u201cto expedite decision in the public interest,\u201d as required in order for this Court to suspend the requirements of Rule 21 under Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Winston-Salem, 171 N.C. App. 266, 269, 614 S.E.2d 599, 601 (\u201cRule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure permits this Court to suspend or vary the requirements of the Rules \u2018[t]o prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.\u2019 We exercise our authority under Rule 2 to consider the parties\u2019 appeals as petitions for certiorari, and we grant certiorari to review the trial court\u2019s interlocutory order.\u201d (alteration in original)), cert. denied, 360 N.C. 60, 621 S.E.2d 176 (2005). Finally, even if we were to treat Phoenix\u2019s brief as a petition for writ of certiorari, Phoenix has not shown that the circumstances of this case are such that immediate appellate review is necessary. Accordingly, we decline to review this case pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari.\nAppeal dismissed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge WYNN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GEER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Price, Smith, Hargett, Petho & Anderson, by William Benjamin Smith, for plaintiffs-appellees.",
      "Carruthers & Roth, P.A., by Kenneth R. Keller, J. Patrick Haywood, and William J. McMahon, TV, for defendant-appellant Phoenix Fabricators and Erectors, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JACINDA BURTON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL C. BURTON, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants DONNA DAVIS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES M. DAVIS, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, INC. and DAVIS, MARTIN, POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants\nNo. COA06-1195\n(Filed 7 August 2007)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 denial of motion to dismiss \u2014 subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 brief not considered petition for certiorari \u2014 Rule 2 inapplicable\nThe trial court\u2019s interlocutory orders denying defendant employer\u2019s motions to dismiss tort actions for the deaths of two employees in North Carolina on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon defendant\u2019s contention that the exclusive remedy provision of the Indiana Workers\u2019 Compensation Act provided it with \u201cimmunity\u201d from suit did not affect a substantial right and were this not immediately appealable because, upon the final resolution of all of plaintiffs\u2019 claims, defendant will be entitled to appeal the issue it asks the appellate court to review, and defendant\u2019s desire to avoid a trial on the merits does not warrant immediate appellate review. Furthermore, defendant employer\u2019s brief will not be treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari because defendant has not complied with the requirements for such a petition set out in N.C. R. App. R 21(c), and defendant has not pointed to any \u201cmanifest injustice\u201d or compelling need \u201cto expedite decision in the public interest\u201d as required for the application of N.C. R. App. P. 2.\nAppeal by defendant from orders entered 16 May 2006 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III in Granville County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 March 2007.\nPrice, Smith, Hargett, Petho & Anderson, by William Benjamin Smith, for plaintiffs-appellees.\nCarruthers & Roth, P.A., by Kenneth R. Keller, J. Patrick Haywood, and William J. McMahon, TV, for defendant-appellant Phoenix Fabricators and Erectors, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 335,
  "last_page_order": 340
}
