{
  "id": 4152303,
  "name": "DOUGLAS J. MARTINI v. COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martini v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "2010-06-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 323A09",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "364 N.C. 234"
    }
  ],
  "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": "679 S.E.2d 156",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2177,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "sha256": "6c28a03f71632ba0b60b2d4e3d33e35e7ab9cdab148b649636c12a8dfa15ad73",
    "simhash": "1:3911569f1e8784da",
    "word_count": 348
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:08:37.384656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DOUGLAS J. MARTINI v. COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, we reverse the decision of that court as to the appealable issue of right and hold that summary judgment was improperly entered on the issue of whether the insurance coverage provided in defendant\u2019s policy applied to plaintiff\u2019s vehicle at the time of the accident. The remaining issues addressed by the Court of Appeals are not properly before this Court, and the decision as to those issues remains undisturbed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nREVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P., by R. Scott Brown and W. John Cathcart, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. and Michael T. Henry, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOUGLAS J. MARTINI v. COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 323A09\n(Filed 17 June 2010)\nInsurance-automobile\u2014 underinsured motorist coverage\u2014 substitute vehicle \u2014 issue of material fact\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff holding that plaintiffs insurance policy for a Toyota provided underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for the Mitsubishi plaintiff was operating at the time of an accident because the Mitsubishi was a \u201ctemporary substitute\u201d for the Toyota is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting Court of Appeals opinion. Sharply conflicting evidence presented by the parties at the summary judgment hearing presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Toyota was \u201cout of service\u201d on the date of the accident and thus whether the Mitsubishi was a substitute vehicle within the meaning of the policy.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,- N.C. App.-, 679 S.E.2d 156 (2009), affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part an order of summary judgment entered on 12 May 2008 by Judge Leon J. Stanback, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 May 2010.\nBrown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P., by R. Scott Brown and W. John Cathcart, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. and Michael T. Henry, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 328,
  "last_page_order": 329
}