{
  "id": 8523963,
  "name": "HAROLD R. HOKE, M.D. v. ALFRED CHARLES YOUNG, Individually and as Agent of PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD; PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD, Individually and Severally, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Individually and Severally",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoke v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1988-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8726SC690",
  "first_page": "569",
  "last_page": "571",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 569"
    }
  ],
  "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": "179 S.E. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559944
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E. 2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170267
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0669-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 342",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568140
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4685827,
        4683427,
        4686693,
        4682357,
        4682613
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0769-01",
        "/nc/311/0769-05",
        "/nc/311/0769-04",
        "/nc/311/0769-03",
        "/nc/311/0769-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 S.E. 2d 63",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "66"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527164
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/68/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E. 2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4726147,
        4727463,
        4730352,
        4725020,
        4723390
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0512-05",
        "/nc/320/0512-04",
        "/nc/320/0512-01",
        "/nc/320/0512-02",
        "/nc/320/0512-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E. 2d 752",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169869
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E. 2d 610",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561020
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "264"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 S.E. 2d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568835,
        8568805,
        8568710,
        8568748,
        8568878
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0299-04",
        "/nc/289/0299-03",
        "/nc/289/0299-01",
        "/nc/289/0299-02",
        "/nc/289/0299-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 173",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547188
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S.E. 2d 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2643851
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568312
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 S.E. 2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4775585,
        4775853,
        4771860,
        4771992,
        4775065
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0333-01",
        "/nc/317/0333-05",
        "/nc/317/0333-03",
        "/nc/317/0333-02",
        "/nc/317/0333-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 S.E. 2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523105
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "681"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0678-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 396,
    "char_count": 5479,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30581396830471586
    },
    "sha256": "dc04b80f2bca5bca9c0c75ad9141d1db7f9fb9a46230ca79b1ba7169dd2cd68d",
    "simhash": "1:6b415c663d6f7c7a",
    "word_count": 923
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HAROLD R. HOKE, M.D. v. ALFRED CHARLES YOUNG, Individually and as Agent of PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD; PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD, Individually and Severally, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Individually and Severally"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nOn 8 September 1979 plaintiff Harold Hoke\u2019s car collided with a bus owned by Paw Creek Church of God and driven by its employee Alfred Charles Young. The church carried liability insurance for the bus and its driver with defendant Insurance Company of North America (INA).\nOn 7 September 1982 plaintiff sued the church and Young to recover for physical injuries and property damage suffered in the 6 September 1979 accident.\nINA, in defense of the church and Young, filed an answer to plaintiff\u2019s complaint, alleging that plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident, and therefore, barred from recovery by his own contributory negligence.\nPlaintiff dismissed the 7 September 1982 suit without prejudice, later refiling the action on 28 August 1985, in order to add INA as a defendant.\nIn plaintiff\u2019s second action, he alleged INA had committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 by alleging in the answer to the 7 September 1982 complaint that plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident.\nINA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s charge pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), which the trial court granted.\nFrom the judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim, he appeals.\n\u201cA motion to dismiss under G.S. 1A-1, R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) generally te\u00a3 ts the legal sufficiency of the complaint: Has the pleader given notice of such facts as will, if true, support a claim for relief under some legal theory?\u201d Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc., 79 N.C. App. 678, 681, 340 S.E. 2d 755, 758, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 333, 346 S.E. 2d 137 (1986); Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970).\nIf plaintiff\u2019s facts are sufficient to state a claim under any legal theory, a claim based upon an incorrect theory of law may not be dismissed under this statute, Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E. 2d 611 (1979); Jones v. City of Greensboro, 51 N.C. App. 571, 277 S.E. 2d 562 (1981), unless the face of the complaint shows an insurmountable bar to recovery. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161; Piatt v. Doughnut Corp., 28 N.C. App. 139, 220 S.E. 2d 173 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 299, 222 S.E. 2d 698 (1976).\nThe trial court concluded in the present case that plaintiffs facts failed to state a recognized claim for relief.\nOn appeal plaintiff argues the statements in INA\u2019s answer were made to coerce him into an unfair settlement of his insurance claim.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-l.Ka) governs this issue and holds in pertinent part: \u201c[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.\u201d\nIn North Carolina \u201c[a] party is guilty of an unfair act or practice when it engages in conduct which amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.\u201d Johnson v. Insurance Co., 300 N.C. 247, 264, 266 S.E. 2d 610, 622 (1980); Dull v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 85 N.C. App. 310, 354 S.E. 2d 752, disc. rev. denied, 320 N.C. 512, 358 S.E. 2d 518 (1987). \u201cTherefore, coercive tactics are within the definition of unfair practices.\u201d Wilder v. Squires, 68 N.C. App. 310, 315, 315 S.E. 2d 63, 66, disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 769, 321 S.E. 2d 158 (1984). However, whether an alleged commercial act or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 is a question of law for the trial court. Hardy v. Toler, 288 N.C. 303, 218 S.E. 2d 342 (1975); Harris v. NCNB, 85 N.C. App. 669, 355 S.E. 2d 838 (1987).\nCoercion or duress occurs when a party intentionally uses a wrongful act or threat to compel a victim to act against his will. Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181, 179 S.E. 2d 697 (1971); Wilder v. Squires, 68 N.C. App. 310, 315 S.E. 2d 63.\nThe facts in plaintiffs complaint alleged only that INA\u2019s attorney improperly relied on hearsay statements gathered by INA\u2019s accident investigator, and, as a result of his negligent reliance, the INA attorney did not sufficiently investigate the defense before raising it in the answer.\nAfter review, we conclude these facts were insufficient, as a matter of law, to state a claim entitling plaintiff to proceed under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1.\nThe trial court\u2019s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Johnson and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elam, Seaford & McGinnis, by William H. Elam, attorney for plaintiff-appe llant.",
      "Wade and Carmichael, by R. C. Carmichael, Jr., attorney for defendant-appellee Insurance Company of North America."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HAROLD R. HOKE, M.D. v. ALFRED CHARLES YOUNG, Individually and as Agent of PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD; PAW CREEK CHURCH OF GOD, Individually and Severally, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Individually and Severally\nNo. 8726SC690\n(Filed 5 April 1988)\nUnfair Competition \u00a7 1\u2014 defendant\u2019s attorney\u2019s actions not coercion or duress \u2014 no claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices alleged\nPlaintiffs allegations that an insurance company\u2019s attorney improperly relied on hearsay statements gathered by the company\u2019s accident investigator concerning plaintiffs intoxication at the time of an accident and that the attorney did not sufficiently investigate the defense before raising it in the answer were insufficient to show coercion or duress, and the complaint was therefore insufficient to allege a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Allen (C. Walter), Judge. Judgment entered 11 February 1987 in Superior Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 January 1988.\nElam, Seaford & McGinnis, by William H. Elam, attorney for plaintiff-appe llant.\nWade and Carmichael, by R. C. Carmichael, Jr., attorney for defendant-appellee Insurance Company of North America."
  },
  "file_name": "0569-01",
  "first_page_order": 597,
  "last_page_order": 599
}