{
  "id": 8525662,
  "name": "HARRIS-TEETER SUPER MARKETS, INC., Plaintiff v. JACK RANKIN WATTS, JR., CONNIE P. WALLACE, and RODNEY E. WALLACE, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris-Teeter Super Markets, Inc. v. Watts",
  "decision_date": "1990-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8927SC1141",
  "first_page": "684",
  "last_page": "688",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. App. 684"
    }
  ],
  "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": "338 S.E.2d 87",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4717402
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12135863
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "602"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560941
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 A.L.R.2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "502"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "847"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2563588
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "534"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 S.E.2d 203",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "205"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519701
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E.2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "613"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573981
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0715-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E.2d 751",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "753"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4693716
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0477-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 481,
    "char_count": 9285,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20555696490413147
    },
    "sha256": "6897aa8fb1ac439751547dcb1dcd16574f5cbcfb02f08c580a5cf4aa3273b249",
    "simhash": "1:234351db3d61ccdf",
    "word_count": 1514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:07.401162+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ORR and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HARRIS-TEETER SUPER MARKETS, INC., Plaintiff v. JACK RANKIN WATTS, JR., CONNIE P. WALLACE, and RODNEY E. WALLACE, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThis appeal challenges the granting of a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) which allows the dismissal of an action for \u201cfailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\u201d In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court \u201cmust take as true the facts alleged,\u201d Ladd v. Estate of Kellenberger, 314 N.C. 477, 479, 334 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1985), and should not dismiss the complaint \u201cunless it affirmatively appears that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be presented in support of the claim.\u201d Presnell v. Pell, 298 N.C. 715, 719, 260 S.E.2d 611, 613 (1979).\nPlaintiff states that the trial court erred in dismissing this action as against the defendants Connie and Rodney Wallace because the complaint and amended complaint state one or more claims for relief against them. This appeal does not address the claims which plaintiff alleged against defendant Jack Rankin Watts, Jr. in the prior action, Harris-Teeter v. Watts, which was heard in this Court on 6 December 1989, 97 N.C. App. 101, 387 S.E.2d 203 (1990).\nThere are three possible \u201cclaims for relief,\u201d according to plaintiff, which would permit plaintiff \u201cto [have] its day in court.\u201d\nI. Equitable subrogation.\nPlaintiff states that the Wallaces \u201care necessary parties in the subrogation claim\u201d against Watts. He quotes verbatim his argument for equitable subrogation which he had included in his brief in the prior related appeal, Harris-Teeter v. Watts, id. In that action, this Court agreed with the statement by the defendant: \u201cTo allow plaintiff equitable subrogation rights against the defendant would in effect allow, an assignment of rights arising out of an alleged cause of action for personal injury, which is contrary to the law of North Carolina.\u201d Id. at 103, 387 S.E.2d at 205. The law of North Carolina is clear in its statement \u201cthat few legal principles are as well settled, and as universally agreed upon, as the rule that the common law does not permit assignments of causes of action to recover for personal injuries.\u201d N. C. Baptist Hospitals v. Mitchell, 323 N.C. 528, 534, 374 S.E.2d 844, 847 (1988), citing Annot., 40 A.L.R.2d 500, 502 (1955). (Emphasis deleted.) We did not allow plaintiff\u2019s subrogation claim in the prior related action and it is likewise rejected in the case at bar.\nII. Breach of contract.\nPlaintiff described the alleged \u201ccontract\u201d between plaintiff and defendants in his amended complaint.\nThe group plan contains a provision which applies when ... a dependent covered under the plan is injured through the act... of another person: the Plaintiff will advance benefits under the plan only on condition that the employee or a dependent agrees in writing to repay the Plaintiff in full any sums advanced to cover such expenses from the judgment or settlement the employee or a dependent receives and to provide the Plaintiff with a lien to repay the Plaintiff to the extent of medical benefits advanced by the Plaintiff.\nNeither the record on appeal nor plaintiff\u2019s brief contain a copy of the actual contract or a quotation of the exact contract language. However, since defendants failed to file an answer to the amended complaint which contained the quote above, the court, on a 12(b)(6) motion, must take as true the facts as alleged.\nDefendants here obtained, after applying under the agreement, sums in excess of $10,000 for medical expenses for injuries caused by a third party. Defendants thereby accepted the terms offered in that provision of the plan. Acceptance of an offer by conduct is a valid acceptance. Snyder v. Freeman, 300 N.C. 204, 218, 266 S.E.2d 593, 602 (1980). Defendants refused to make a written agreement and failed to provide a lien to repay the plaintiff. They have given plaintiff clear notice by their unequivocal conduct that they will not honor the repayment provision of the benefit plan, and their actions constitute a repudiation and a breach of the contract. Millis Constr. Co. v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley, 86 N.C. App. 506, 358 S.E.2d 566 (1987). Plaintiff has therefore stated a claim against defendants for breach of contract.\nIII. Unjust enrichment.\nPlaintiff alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched in that they have retained the benefits of plaintiff\u2019s payments \u201cwithout asserting, assisting, or cooperating in a claim against Watts for medical expenses.\u201d Plaintiff further states that defendants are primarily liable for these medical expenses because of their obligation to provide for the support of their minor child. Alamance County Hosp. v. Neighbors, 315 N.C. 362, 365, 338 S.E.2d 87, 89 (1986). We agree with plaintiff\u2019s statement in his amended complaint: that defendants \u201chave taken advantage of the group plan benefits without complying with the express or implied provisions or the spirit of the plan which provides for the Plaintiff in situations such as this, to recoup its losses when a third party causes injuries to covered persons.\u201d Plaintiff has presented a valid claim upon which relief may be granted.\nThe trial court erred in dismissing this action against the defendants because the complaint and amended complaint state two claims, (1) breach of contract, and (2) unjust enrichment, upon which relief may be granted. This action is hereby remanded for further proceedings on the merits of plaintiff-appellant\u2019s claims.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges ORR and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., hy Judith E. Egan, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "No counsel for appellee on appeal nor any pro se appearance."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARRIS-TEETER SUPER MARKETS, INC., Plaintiff v. JACK RANKIN WATTS, JR., CONNIE P. WALLACE, and RODNEY E. WALLACE, Defendants\nNo. 8927SC1141\n(Filed 5 June 1990)\n1. Assignments \u00a7 2 (NCI4th)\u2014 personal injury action \u2014 not assignable\nThe trial court did not err by granting a motion by the defendants Wallace for dismissal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) in an action in which plaintiff was attempting to recover from defendant Watts sums paid to defendants Wallace under an employee benefit plan for injuries suffered by their son and caused by defendant Watts. Although plaintiff contended that the Wallaces were necessary parties in the subrogation claim against Watts, allowing plaintiff equitable subrogation rights against defendants Wallace would in effect allow an assignment of rights arising out of an alleged cause of action for personal injury, which is contrary to the law of North Carolina.\nAm Jur 2d, Assignments \u00a7 37.\n2. Contracts \u00a7 25.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 employee benefit plan \u2014 medical expenses for injured son \u2014 refusal to provide lien to repay\u2014 breach of contract\nPlaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract and defendants\u2019 motion for dismissal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) should not have been granted where defendants obtained payments for their son\u2019s medical expenses caused by a third party from plaintiff under an employee benefit plan and then refused to make a written agreement and failed to provide a lien to repay plaintiff from any judgment or settlement received.\nAm Jur 2d, Master and Servant \u00a7 397; Restitution and Implied Contracts \u00a7\u00a7 3, 10, 153.\n3. Quasi Contracts and Restitution \u00a7 1.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 employee benefit plan \u2014expenses for injuries caused by third person \u2014 refusal to assist claim against third party \u2014unjust enrichment\nPlaintiff presented a valid claim for unjust enrichment upon which relief might be granted in an action in which defendants obtained from plaintiff under an employee benefit plan medical expenses for injuries caused to their son by a third party but did not assert, assist, or cooperate in a claim against the third party for those expenses.\nAm Jur 2d, Master and Servant \u00a7 397; Restitution and Implied Contracts \u00a7\u00a7 3, 10, 153.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order entered 19 July 1989 by Judge J. Marlene Hyatt in GASTON County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 May 1990.\nDefendant John Rankin Watts, Jr. drove a motor vehicle which struck Bradley James Wallace, the son of defendants Connie P. Wallace and Rodney E. Wallace. Bradley Wallace suffered bodily injuries and his parents incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization. At the request of Rodney E. Wallace, an employee of the plaintiff, the plaintiff provided, through a self-funded employee benefit program, benefits in excess of $10,000 for medical expenses related to Bradley\u2019s injuries.\nIn a separate action, Bradley Wallace, through his guardian ad litem Connie P. Wallace, seeks to recover damages from defendant Watts for personal injuries sustained by the minor child. The guardian ad litem failed and refused to assert a claim specifically for medical expenses related to the injury. The plaintiff was denied leave to intervene in that action when plaintiff attempted to assert its claim for reimbursement of medical expenses which plaintiff paid for the child\u2019s injuries and did not appeal.\nPlaintiff then filed this action and defendants Connie P. and Rodney E. Wallace filed a motion to dismiss the action as to them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss the action as to these defendants. Plaintiff appeals.\nJames, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., hy Judith E. Egan, for plaintiff-appellant.\nNo counsel for appellee on appeal nor any pro se appearance."
  },
  "file_name": "0684-01",
  "first_page_order": 712,
  "last_page_order": 716
}
