Preview:

NO. COA11-835 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 December 2011 JERRY GRIMSLEY, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Robeson County No. 09 CVS 274

Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 February 2011 by Judge J. Gregory Bell in Robeson County Superior Court. in the Court of Appeals 14 November 2011. Musselwhite, Musselwhite, Branch and Grantham, by Musselwhite and Stephen C. McIntyre, for Plaintiff. J.W. Heard

York Williams & Lewis, LLP, by Thomas E. Williams and David R. DiMatteo, for Defendant. STEPHENS, Judge. As a result of an automobile collision between Plaintiff Jerry Grimsley and another driver, Grimsley was injured and

incurred "significant damages" that exceeded the limits of the other driver's liability insurance. claim Grimsley with his filed an

underinsured insurance Company

motorist

("UIM")

automobile Insurance of

provider, ("GEICO"),

Defendant seeking

Government for

Employees the

coverage

remainder

-2Grimsley's damages. informed Grimsley GEICO denied full coverage of the claim and that, according to his policy with GEICO,

Grimsley's UIM coverage was limited to $100,000.

Thereafter,

Grimsley filed the present action in Robeson County Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the UIM coverage limit under Grimsley's policy was $1,000,000 at the time of his injury. After GEICO responded to Grimsley's complaint, both parties moved for summary judgment. The motions were heard by Judge Ola

M. Lewis; however, no order disposing of the motions was entered by Judge Lewis. Thereafter, GEICO amended its answer and filed

a "Motion for Relief from Order or Ruling and Motion for Summary Judgment." GEICO's motions were heard by Judge J. Gregory Bell,

who entered an order denying GEICO's motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment for Grimsley. GEICO appeals.

As an initial matter, GEICO argues that Judge Bell's order granting summary judgment for Grimsley was improper because that order overruled Judge Lewis' order purportedly denying summary judgment for Grimsley and, thus, violated the rule that one superior court judge may not reconsider and grant a motion for summary judgment previously denied by another superior court

judge. See, e.g., Hastings v. Seegars Fence Co., 128 N.C. App. 166, 168, 493 S.E.2d 782, 784 (1997). This argument is

-3unavailing, however, because Judge Lewis' purported order was never entered and was, therefore, ineffective. West v. Marko, 130 N.C. App. 751, 755-56, 504 S.E.2d 571, 573-74 (1998)

(holding that an order is not enforceable until it is entered). In the absence of an enforceable order denying summary judgment for Grimsley, we cannot conclude that Judge Bell's order

granting summary judgment for Grimsley impermissibly overruled another superior court judge's previous order. overruled. GEICO next argues that Judge Bell erred by denying GEICO's motion for summary judgment and by granting summary judgment for Grimsley. Specifically, GEICO contends that the evidence before This argument is

the trial court showed that Grimsley would be unable to prevail on his claim that his UIM coverage limit was $1,000,000 at the time of his injury. Therefore, GEICO urges, Judge Bell should For the following

have granted summary judgment for GEICO. reasons, we agree.

In his complaint, Grimsley asserted that he was entitled to $1,000,000 in UIM coverage based on GEICO's alleged violation of N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 11-835.pdf

South Carolina Law