{
  "id": 2557977,
  "name": "BENNY BENTON, Plaintiff v. HUGH CLIFTON THOMERSON, JR., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. CLAUDE E. McCLAIN, Third-Party Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Benton v. Thomerson",
  "decision_date": "1995-02-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 78A94",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "339 N.C. 598"
    }
  ],
  "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": "438 S.E.2d 434",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521975
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 ALR Fed. 107",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. Fed.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 4344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3551950326061481
    },
    "sha256": "b63972f6e69c4b251411081706b6b34a3e79f56d7b008dabd8726f067080e4da",
    "simhash": "1:3d7a4e22f4b0857e",
    "word_count": 685
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:35.214532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BENNY BENTON, Plaintiff v. HUGH CLIFTON THOMERSON, JR., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. CLAUDE E. McCLAIN, Third-Party Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred when a vehicle driven by Hugh Clifton Thomerson, Jr. collided with a vehicle driven by Claude E. McClain. Benny Benton, a passenger in Thomerson\u2019s vehicle, was injured as a result of the accident. On 6 April 1990, Benton filed an action against Thomerson alleging Thomerson was negligent in operating his vehicle. Prior to this action coming on for trial, Thomerson filed a third-party complaint against Claude E. McClain alleging that if Thomerson were liable, which Thomerson denied, then he was entitled to contribution from McClain because McClain was also negligent. McClain counterclaimed against Thomerson for the property damage to his vehicle.\nFollowing a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Benton for $15,000.00 and also in favor of third-party defendant McClain for $1,000. In addition, the trial court awarded attorney\u2019s fees against third-party plaintiff Thomerson pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.1 based on a finding of an unwarranted refusal to settle by Thomerson\u2019s insurance company, and ordered Thomerson to pay McClain attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $8,810.00. Thomerson filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 60 alleging in part that his insurance company had in fact settled with McClain for property damage. Following a hearing on Thomerson\u2019s motion, the trial court reduced the amount of attorney\u2019s fees to $1,000.00.\nIn addition, McClain moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Thomerson\u2019s counsel, Philip R. Hedrick, on the bases that the claim for contribution alleged in the third-party complaint was not well-grounded in law or fact and was filed for an improper purpose. The trial court awarded sanctions against Hedrick in the amount of $8,810.00. Thomerson appealed the trial court\u2019s decision to the Court of Appeals assigning as error the trial court\u2019s award of sanctions and attorney\u2019s fees.\nThe Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the trial court\u2019s award of attorney\u2019s fees on the ground that Thomerson\u2019s insurance company did settle the property damages with McClain and that the trial court\u2019s finding of an unwarranted refusal to settle by the insurance company was an abuse of discretion. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions against Hedrick based on its finding that Thomerson filed the third-party complaint for an improper purpose. Judge Martin dissented from the part of the decision affirming sanctions.\nBased on Judge Martin\u2019s dissent, third-party defendant Thomerson appealed to this Court the issue of Rule 11 sanctions against his attorney Philip Hedrick. The only question before us is, therefore, whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the trial court\u2019s award of Rule 11 sanctions against Hedrick. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion for the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed on that issue.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Jack A. Gardner, III and Kimberly M. Quade, for defendant and third-party plaintiff",
      "Rose, Ray, Winfrey, O\u2019Connor & Leslie, RA., by Ronald E. Winfrey and Pamela S. Leslie, for third-party defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BENNY BENTON, Plaintiff v. HUGH CLIFTON THOMERSON, JR., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. CLAUDE E. McCLAIN, Third-Party Defendant\nNo. 78A94\n(Filed 10 February 1995)\nPleadings \u00a7 63 (NCI4th)\u2014 third-party complaint \u2014 reversal of sanctions against attorney\nThe Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court\u2019s award of Rule 11 sanctions against defendant\u2019s attorney on the grounds that a claim for contribution alleged in a third-party complaint was not well-grounded in law or fact and was filed for an improper purpose is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals.\nAm Jur 2d, Pleading \u00a7 339.\nComment Note. \u2014 General principles regarding imposition of sanctions under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 95 ALR Fed. 107.\nAppeal by defendant and third-party plaintiff Hugh Clifton Thomerson, Jr., pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2), from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 113 N.C. App. 293, 438 S.E.2d 434 (1994), reversing in part an order entered 22 April 1992 by Brewer, J., in the Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 January 1995.\nHedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Jack A. Gardner, III and Kimberly M. Quade, for defendant and third-party plaintiff\nRose, Ray, Winfrey, O\u2019Connor & Leslie, RA., by Ronald E. Winfrey and Pamela S. Leslie, for third-party defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 638
}