{
  "id": 2555442,
  "name": "HELEN BARNES and WILLIAM G. BARNES, JR. v. NORMAN L. HARDY, JR., ELLA FLEMING HARDY AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barnes v. Hardy",
  "decision_date": "1991-08-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 223A90",
  "first_page": "690",
  "last_page": "691",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "329 N.C. 690"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "390 S.E.2d 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N.C. App. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524598
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/98/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 S.E.2d 648",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4718547
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 497",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "611"
        },
        {
          "page": "501"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2555126
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0603-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.31052265537145e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5129034549890746
    },
    "sha256": "30623727a6ea9dbe7bdf6c4cda0a8fc08056acb69d7d50d44c8ebf0ca5751863",
    "simhash": "1:9af57cf364e3ccd2",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:52.475304+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HELEN BARNES and WILLIAM G. BARNES, JR. v. NORMAN L. HARDY, JR., ELLA FLEMING HARDY AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EXUM, Chief Justice.\nPlaintiff Helen Barnes was injured in a collision with the insured defendants Hardy. Plaintiffs filed suit and defendant insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (\u201cUSF&G\u201d), offered $49,900 in settlement. The liability limit on the policy was $50,000, and coverage included \u201call defense costs we incur.\u201d\nPlaintiffs eventually accepted $50,000 from defendant insurer, but the parties could not agree on whether USF&G was responsible for prejudgment interest in excess of its liability limits. They submitted to a declaratory judgment action in which the trial court held USF&G was not liable for such interest.\nPlaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed over Judge Cozort\u2019s dissent. Plaintiffs appealed to us as of right.\nToday in Sproles v. Greene, 329 N.C. 603, 407 S.E.2d 497 (1991), we considered another insurance policy in which the insurer promised to pay, in addition to the policy limits, \u201c \u2018all defense costs we incur.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 611, 407 S.E.2d at 501. In determining that the term \u201cdefense costs\u201d does not embrace prejudgment interest beyond policy limits, we distinguished Lowe v. Tarble, 313 N.C. 460, 329 S.E.2d 648 (1985). Lowe held the term \u201call costs taxed against the insured\u201d to include such prejudgment interest. Reading \u201cdefense costs\u201d more narrowly than \u201call costs,\u201d we concluded in Sproles that the policy did not require the insurer to pay prejudgment interest beyond the policy limits.\nSproles controls the decision in this case. The policy terms denoting coverage of defense costs here are identical to those in Sproles. We therefore follow Sproles and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EXUM, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Taft, Taft & Haigler, by Mark R. Morano, for plaintiff-appellants.",
      "Gaylord, Singleton, McNally, Strickland & Snyder, by Danny D. McNally, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HELEN BARNES and WILLIAM G. BARNES, JR. v. NORMAN L. HARDY, JR., ELLA FLEMING HARDY AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY\nNo. 223A90\n(Filed 14 August 1991)\nInsurance \u00a7 110.1 (NCI3d) \u2014 prejudgment interest beyond policy limits \u2014insurer not required to pay\nDefendant insurer was not required to pay prejudgment interest beyond its policy limits, since the insurer, pursuant to the language of the policy, agreed to pay \u201call defense costs we incur,\u201d and that did not include prejudgment interest.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 428.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 98 N.C. App. 381, 390 S.E.2d 758 (1990), affirming a declaratory judgment entered by Phillips, J., on 6 February 1989 in Superior Court, PITT County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 November 1990.\nTaft, Taft & Haigler, by Mark R. Morano, for plaintiff-appellants.\nGaylord, Singleton, McNally, Strickland & Snyder, by Danny D. McNally, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0690-01",
  "first_page_order": 728,
  "last_page_order": 729
}