{ "id": 4033238, "name": "TERRY WAYNE WOOD, Plaintiff v. JEREMY NUNNERY, et al., Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Wood v. Nunnery", "decision_date": "2012-08-07", "docket_number": "No. COA11-750", "first_page": "303", "last_page": "308", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "222 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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11199462 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328-29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(4)" }, { "page": "(b)(4)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "608 S.E.2d 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N.C. App. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8470710 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/168/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 S.E.2d 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N.C. App. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8413824 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/166/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486785 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-239", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 495, "char_count": 12796, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.6906204911912216e-08, "percentile": 0.35786005284477973 }, "sha256": "3c5fae896d1265257236a75765b9065610e5313f54abd2fac0c8226219d4b123", "simhash": "1:e96b8726f78f1f7d", "word_count": 2025 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:21.020165+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GEER and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur." ], "parties": [ "TERRY WAYNE WOOD, Plaintiff v. JEREMY NUNNERY, et al., Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nThe trial court erred in declaring that the judgment entered against defendant in a personal injury case had been satisfied.\nI. Factual and Procedural History\nOn 10 May 2006, Terry Wayne Wood (plaintiff) was injured in an automobile accident in Harnett County as a result of the negligence of Jeremy Nunnery (defendant). On 30 April 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), and Firemen\u2019s Insurance Company of Washington, D.C. (Firemen\u2019s).\nFarm Bureau was dismissed from the action and is not a party to this appeal. Firemen\u2019s is the underinsured motorist carrier for plaintiff\u2019s employer. Defendant was insured at the time of the accident by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). On 26 May 2009, defendant filed an answer to the complaint. On 15 June 2009, Firemen\u2019s filed an answer to the complaint in its own name.\nOn 11 August 2010, a jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 in damages for his personal injuries, against defendant. On 31 August 2010, the trial court entered a judgment directing that plaintiff recover damages in the amount of $300,000.00 along with interest at the statutory rate of 8% from 30 April 2009 from defendant'. On 2 September 2010, State Farm paid its policy limit of $30,000 into the office of the Forsyth County Clerk of Court. On 13 September 2010, Firemen\u2019s paid $202,627.58 into the office of the Forsyth County Clerk of Court. Plaintiff had received workers\u2019 compensation benefits totaling more than $148,000.00. The amount of the lien of plaintiff\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation carrier was reduced, by agreement, to $50,000.00.\nOn 1 December 2010, defendant filed a motion for credit upon and satisfaction of the judgment and for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff\u2019s counsel. On 13 December 2010, plaintiff filed a response and moved for an order compelling Firemen\u2019s to divulge any agreement to waive subrogation rights and to produce the applicable insurance policy in effect on the date of the accident.\nOn 29 December 2010, the trial court entered an order declaring that the payments of $30,000.00 by State Farm and $202,627.58 by Firemen\u2019s paid into the office of the Clerk of Superior Court of Forsyth County constituted payment in full of the judgment and that the judgment was satisfied. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion for sanctions and plaintiff\u2019s motions.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nOn appeal, Firemen\u2019s filed a brief that merely adopts the arguments of defendant and makes no independent arguments.\nII. Satisfaction of Judgment\nIn his first argument, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the payments of State Farm and Firemen\u2019s constituted satisfaction of the judgment entered against defendant. We agree.\nThe trial court held that the $30,000.00 from State Farm, $202,627.58 from Firemen\u2019s, and the net benefit of $98,000.00 in workers\u2019 compensation benefits ($148,000.00 less the reduced lien of $50,000.00) constituted a recovery to the plaintiff of at least $330,627.58. The trial court went on to hold that \u201cthe collective payments paid into the Office of the Clerk of Court of Forsyth County constitute full payment and satisfaction of the final Judgment entered herein.\u201d In making its ruling, the trial court cited to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-239, 20-279.21(b) and (e); Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513, 379 S.E.2d 854 (1989); Austin v. Midgett, 166 N.C. App. 740, 603 S.E.2d 855 (2004); and Walker v. Penn National, 168 N.C. App. 555, 608 S.E.2d 107 (2005).\nA. Bases of Liability\nWe initially note that the trial court conflated the concepts of the amounts owed by defendant as the tortfeasor in this matter and the amount owed by Firemen\u2019s as an underinsured motorist carrier (UIM). Plaintiff instituted this action against defendant, seeking monetary damages for personal injuries proximately caused by the negligence of defendant. The jury found that plaintiff\u2019s injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant and awarded damages to plaintiff of $300,000.00. The trial court entered judgment against only defendant. This judgment was based upon defendant\u2019s negligence and was a tort recovery.\nThe liability of Firemen\u2019s is based in contract, not in tort. It is undisputed that Firemen\u2019s was the UIM carrier for the vehicle that plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident and that plaintiff was an insured under Firemen\u2019s UIM coverage. Firemen\u2019s was notified of the pendency of this action, was afforded an opportunity to participate in this litigation, and in fact did participate in the litigation. Plaintiff does not dispute that the $202,627.58 paid by Firemen\u2019s was the correct computation of Firemen\u2019s liability to plaintiff under the UIM coverage of its policy.\nPlaintiff\u2019s argument on appeal is that the computation of defendant\u2019s liability and the computation of Firemen\u2019s liability are two different calculations and that, while Firemen\u2019s contractual obligation under the UIM coverage has been discharged, defendant\u2019s tort liability has not been so discharged.\nB. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 does not determine a defendant\u2019s responsibility to pay a judgment entered against him. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 is the principal statute governing automobile liability insurance policies in North Carolina, including minimum required policy amounts, uninsured motorist coverage, and underinsured motorist coverage. The provisions of this statute are deemed to be a part of every automobile insurance policy written in North Carolina and control over contrary provisions contained in such policies. Corbett v. Smith, 131 N.C. App. 327, 328-29, 507 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1998). Relevant provisions of this statute are as follows:\nUnderinsured motorist coverage is deemed to apply when, by reason of payment of judgment or settlement, all liability bonds or insurance policies providing coverage for bodily injury caused by the ownership, maintenance, or use of the underinsured highway vehicle have been exhausted. . . .\nUnderinsured motorist coverage is deemed to apply to the first dollar of an underinsured motorist coverage claim beyond amounts paid to the claimant under the exhausted liability policy.\nIn any event, the limit of underinsured motorist coverage applicable to any claim is determined to be the difference between the amount paid to the claimant under the exhausted liability policy or policies and the limit of underinsured motorist coverage applicable to the motor vehicle involved in the accident. . . .\nIn the event of payment, the underinsured motorist insurer shall be either: (a) entitled to receive by assignment from the claimant any right or (b) subrogated to the claimant\u2019s right regarding any claim the claimant has or had against the owner, operator, or maintainer of the underinsured highway vehicle, provided that the amount of the insurer\u2019s right by subrogation or assignment shall not exceed payments made to the claimant by the insurer.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) (2011).\nSince Firemen\u2019s paid $202,627.58 into the office of the Clerk of Court for Forsyth County, and not to plaintiff directly, there would have been no \u201cassignment\u201d or subrogation receipt executed by plaintiff to Firemen\u2019s. However, under subsection (b) of this above-cited statute, Firemen\u2019s would be subrogated to plaintiff\u2019s right against defendant to the extent of its payment ($202,627.58). Because of this statutory right of subrogation, defendant cannot be entitled to a credit against the judgment for payments made by Firemen\u2019s as a UIM carrier. Since no party has raised the issue of whether Firemen\u2019s is estopped from seeking subrogation from defendant by adopting defendant\u2019s brief, we do not address that issue.\nWe further hold that the trial court\u2019s reliance upon Manning, Austin, and Walker was misplaced. Plaintiff correctly notes that the issue in each of these cases was the computation of the amount owed by a UIM carrier to its insured. Defendant was not a UIM carrier. Therefore, these cases and the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 are not relevant to the issue in this case: whether defendant is entitled to a credit for payments made by Firemen\u2019s.\nWe hold that defendant is not entitled to a credit for payments made by Firemen\u2019s into the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court for Forsyth County.\nC. N.C. Gen. Stat. S 1-239\n\u201cThe party against whom a judgment for the payment of money is rendered by any court of record may pay the whole, or any part thereof, in cash or by check, to the clerk of the court in which the same was renderedf.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-239 (2011).\nIn this case, the judgment was entered only against defendant. It was not entered against Firemen\u2019s. By the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-239, defendant is responsible for satisfying the judgment entered against him.\nThe only payment to which defendant is entitled to a credit against the judgment is the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm, defendant\u2019s liability insurance carrier. As noted above, defendant is not entitled to a credit for the $202,627.58 paid by Firemen\u2019s.\nIII. Motion to Compel\nIn his next argument, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to compel production of Firemen\u2019s insurance policy and to compel disclosure of whether Firemen\u2019s agreed to waive its subrogation rights. We disagree.\nAs stated above, Firemen\u2019s was subrogated to the extent of its payments to plaintiff to a portion of plaintiff\u2019s judgment against defendant. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4). The statute providing for this subrogation right would control over the policy provisions. Whether Firemen\u2019s agreed to waive its subrogation rights as to defendant is a matter for resolution between Firemen\u2019s and defendant and is of no concern to plaintiff. Plaintiff received the $202,627.58 from Firemen\u2019s and has acknowledged the correctness of the amount of this payment.\nWe affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion to compel.\nIV. Conclusion\nThe trial court erred in declaring that the judgment against defendant had been paid and satisfied in full. The portion of the trial court\u2019s order so declaring is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. At such a hearing, the trial court may consider whether defendant is entitled to additional credits against the judgment, other than the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.\nJudges GEER and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.\n. Apparently, plaintiff was operating a vehicle owned by his employer at the time of the accident. There is no dispute that Firemen\u2019s underinsured motorist policy is applicable to this case.\n. In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5(b), the trial court awarded interest from the date of filing of the complaint. The judgment states that plaintiff \u201cshall have and recover from Defendant Jeremy Nunnery compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000.00, interest on the compensatory damages at the legal rate of 8% from April 30, 2009 until the Judgment is satisfied].]\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Maynard & Harris, Attorneys at Law, PLLC by G. Douglas Maynard, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant Terry Wayne Wood.", "Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C. by Rodney A. Guthrie and Roberta King Latham for defendant-appellee Jeremy Nunnery.", "Horton Henry & Halvorsen, P.L.L.C. by R. Shane Walker for defendant-appellee Firemen\u2019s Insurance Company of Washington, D.C." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TERRY WAYNE WOOD, Plaintiff v. JEREMY NUNNERY, et al., Defendants\nNo. COA11-750\n(Filed 7 August 2012)\n1. Accord and Satisfaction \u2014 personal injury \u2014 no credit for payments to clerk\u2019s office\nThe trial court erred by declaring that the judgment entered against defendant in a personal injury case had been satisfied based on the payments of State Farm and Firemen\u2019s Insurance Company (Firemen\u2019s). Defendant was not entitled to a credit for payments made by Firemen\u2019s into the office of the clerk of superior court. On remand, the trial court may consider whether defendant was entitled to additional credits against the judgment, other than the $30,000 paid by State Farm.\n2. Discovery \u2014 motion to compel production \u2014 insurance policy\u2014 motion to compel disclosure \u2014 waiver of subrogation rights\nThe trial court did not err by denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to compel production of Firemen\u2019s Insurance Company\u2019s (Firemen\u2019s) insurance policy and to compel disclosure of whether Firemen\u2019s agreed to waive its subrogation rights because it was a matter for resolution between Firemen\u2019s and defendant, and was of no concern to plaintiff.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 29 December 2010 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr. in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 January 2012.\nMaynard & Harris, Attorneys at Law, PLLC by G. Douglas Maynard, Jr. for plaintiff-appellant Terry Wayne Wood.\nBennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C. by Rodney A. Guthrie and Roberta King Latham for defendant-appellee Jeremy Nunnery.\nHorton Henry & Halvorsen, P.L.L.C. by R. Shane Walker for defendant-appellee Firemen\u2019s Insurance Company of Washington, D.C." }, "file_name": "0303-01", "first_page_order": 313, "last_page_order": 318 }