Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA10-484 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JANE ELIZABETH SECHRIST, JUSTIN PAUL FRYAR, PAUL S. FRYAR, and NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendants. Appeal by Plaintiff and Defendants Jane Elizabeth Sechrist, Justin Paul Fryar, and Paul S. Fryar from order entered 15 December 2009 by Judge Edgar B. Gregory in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 November 2010. Frazier, Hill & Fury, RLLP, by Torin L. Fury, for PlaintiffAppellant Integon National Insurance Company. Egerton & Associates, P.A., by Kurt B. Aktug, for DefendantAppellants Jane Elizabeth Sechrist, Justin Paul Fryar, and Paul S. Fryar. Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown, PLLC, by David L. Brown, for Defendant-Appellee North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. STEPHENS, Judge. Guilford County No. 09 CVS 3085 1 February 2011

I. Procedural History and Factual Background

-2On 15 March 2008, Defendant Justin Paul Fryar ("Justin") sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Landon Lee Isley ("Landon"). At the time of the accident, Landon had liability

insurance coverage through a Personal Auto Policy with Defendant North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. ("Farm Bureau"). Farm Bureau had also issued a Personal Auto Policy to

Defendant Paul S. Fryar ("Mr. Fryar"), Justin's father, which was in effect at the time of the accident and provides underinsured motorists ("UIM") coverage to Justin for the accident.1 Integon National Insurance Company ("Integon") had Plaintiff issued a

Personal Auto Policy to Defendant Jane Elizabeth Sechrist ("Ms. Sechrist"), Justin's mother, which was in effect at the time of the accident and potentially provides UIM coverage to Justin for the accident.2 Additionally, Farm Bureau had issued a Business Auto

Policy to Mr. Fryar which covered two dump trucks used by Mr. Fryar in his business and which was also in effect at the time of the accident. On or about 29 January 2009, Integon filed a declaratory judgment action against Defendants seeking a determination of

Farm Bureau states in its Motion for Summary Judgment that it is "undisputed" that the Personal Auto Policy issued by Farm Bureau to Mr. Fryar "provides underinsured motorist coverage to Defendant Justin Paul Fryar" in relation to the accident at issue. The record does not reflect whether Ms. Sechrist's Personal Auto Policy actually provides UIM coverage to Justin for the accident.
2

1

-3whether the Business Auto Policy issued by Farm Bureau to Mr. Fryar provided UIM coverage to Justin for his injuries resulting from the accident. On 16 February 2009, Ms. Sechrist, Mr. Fryar, and Justin filed an Answer and Crossclaim, seeking a declaration that the Business Auto Policy provided UIM coverage to Justin. On 16 March 2009, Farm Bureau filed an answer, counterclaim, and crossclaim denying that the Business Auto Policy issued to Mr. Fryar provided UIM coverage and seeking a declaration that the policy did not provide UIM coverage to Justin. On 2 October 2009, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment. On 15 December 2009, the trial court entered an order

granting summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau and declaring that the Business Auto Policy "cannot be stacked or otherwise applied to provide any [UIM] coverage to Justin Paul Fryar as a result of the March 15, 2008 motor vehicle accident described herein." From the trial court's order, Integon, Ms. Sechrist, Mr.

Fryar, and Justin (collectively, "Appellants") appeal. II. Discussion Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. For the reasons stated

herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 10-484-8.pdf

South Carolina Law