{ "id": 8526893, "name": "BROWN McKINNEY and wife, BETTY McKINNEY, et al. v. THE ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "McKinney v. Royal Globe Insurance", "decision_date": "1983-10-04", "docket_number": "No. 8224SC1112", "first_page": "370", "last_page": "373", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. App. 370" } ], "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": "301 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562211, 8562157, 8562127, 8562066, 8562100 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0092-05", "/nc/301/0092-04", "/nc/301/0092-03", "/nc/301/0092-01", "/nc/301/0092-02" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549625 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552327 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E. 2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572582, 8572566, 8572504, 8572540, 8572479 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0609-05", "/nc/297/0609-04", "/nc/297/0609-02", "/nc/297/0609-03", "/nc/297/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547593 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 2d 669", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "671" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624256 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629835 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E. 2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572343 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569731, 8569799, 8569706, 8569775, 8569756 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0547-02", "/nc/286/0547-05", "/nc/286/0547-01", "/nc/286/0547-04", "/nc/286/0547-03" ] }, { "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565058 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0434-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 368, "char_count": 5733, "ocr_confidence": 0.795, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0221199873817964e-07, "percentile": 0.5456333554581754 }, "sha256": "59379506dce70253a1dc71d6a164963bdf14aa31e17f60d6ad28f1e3bbc36113", "simhash": "1:13f9621c3a9d136e", "word_count": 948 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HEDRICK and Webb concur." ], "parties": [ "BROWN McKINNEY and wife, BETTY McKINNEY, et al. v. THE ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HILL, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the court\u2019s granting of partial summary judgment for plaintiffs. At the outset, a question arises as to whether the partial summary judgment is appealable. We conclude defendant\u2019s appeal is premature and accordingly, we dismiss it. Defendant brings its appeal pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(1) which in effect provide \u201cthat no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of the trial judge unless such ruling or order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the ruling or order is not reviewed before final judgment.\u201d Consumers Power v. Power Co., 285 N.C. 434, 437, 206 S.E. 2d 178, 181, reh\u2019g denied, 286 N.C. 547 (1974). See also Waters v. Personnel Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978).\nClearly, Judge Howell\u2019s order is not final but is interlocutory as it was entered during the pendency of the action, does not dispose of the case, and because further judicial action is required in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. See Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E. 2d 377 (1950). In its answer, defendant raised essentially four defenses which were: (1) that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; (2) that the plaintiffs caused the fire loss; (3) that plaintiffs increased the hazard of loss; and (4) that plaintiffs filed a fraudulent proof of loss statement. With the granting of summary judgment as to the second defense only, the court did not determine the issue of defendant\u2019s liability, thus the issues of liability and damages still remain to be resolved.\nAn appeal at this stage in the proceedings is objectionable because the court\u2019s order will only adversely affect defendant if and when it is determined that defendant is liable to plaintiffs. The reason for the rules embodied in G.S. 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(1) is to \u201cprevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial divisions to have done with a case fully and finally before it is presented to the appellate division. \u2018Appellate procedure is designed to eliminate the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary appeals, and to present the whole case for determination in a single appeal from the final judgment.\u2019 \u201d Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978), quoting Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529, 67 S.E. 2d 669, 671 (1951). The present appeal is illustrative of the unnecessary, fragmentary appeals which the rules were designed to eliminate.\nFurthermore, Judge Howell\u2019s order is not appealable on the theory that it affects a substantial right of defendant and will work injury to it if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment. This case does not involve a mandatory injunction, see English v. Realty Corp., 41 N.C. App. 1, 254 S.E. 2d 223, cert. denied, 297 N.C. 609, 257 S.E. 2d 217 (1979), an immediate payment of damages; see Beck v. Assurance Co., 36 N.C. App. 218, 243 S.E. 2d 414 (1978); Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Myers, 46 N.C. App. 162, 265 S.E. 2d 240, appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 92 (1980), or other damaging measures that would affect a substantial right of defendant. As was the case in Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E. 2d 338, 344 (1978), \u201c[defendant's rights here are fully and adequately protected by an exception to the order which may then be assigned as error on appeal should final judgment in the case ultimately go against it.\u201d Because Judge Howell\u2019s order is interlocutory and does not deprive defendant of any substantial right, it is not appealable.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges HEDRICK and Webb concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HILL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Dennis L. Howell for plaintiff appellees.", "Morris, Golding and Phillips by James N. Golding for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BROWN McKINNEY and wife, BETTY McKINNEY, et al. v. THE ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 8224SC1112\n(Filed 4 October 1983)\nAppeal and Error g 6.2\u2014 order granting partial summary judgment \u2014 premature appeal\nIn an action to recover on a fire insurance policy in which defendant pleaded four different defenses, the trial court\u2019s order granting plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment as to defendant\u2019s second defense that plaintiffs caused the fire was not immediately appealable since it was interlocutory and did not deprive defendant of any substantial right. G.S. l-277(a); G.S. 7A-27(d)(l).\nAppeal by defendant from Howell, Judge. Order entered 21 July 1982 in Superior Court, Mitchell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September 1983.\nPlaintiffs instituted this action to recover damages from loss by fire of premises covered by an insurance policy issued by defendant. Defendant admitted issuance of the policy and that same was in full force and effect at the time of the fire, but denied liability. Defendant pleaded five defenses, the second of which was alleged as follows:\nSecond Defense\nThe defendant is advised, informed, and believes, and, therefore, alleges, that the fire referred to in plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint and any and all damages resulting therefrom were caused by the intentional and deliberate acts and omissions of the plaintiffs in that the plaintiffs, through their own acts and omissions or through the acts of others directed by them, caused the fire to occur and the plaintiffs are unable to recover any sums of the defendant and are not entitled to any recovery under the policy referred to.\nAfter discovery, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and affidavits in support thereof. The court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment as to defendant\u2019s second defense and denied said motion as to the other defenses. Defendant appealed.\nDennis L. Howell for plaintiff appellees.\nMorris, Golding and Phillips by James N. Golding for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0370-01", "first_page_order": 402, "last_page_order": 405 }