Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company

378 S.E.2d 748, 324 N.C. 430, 1989 N.C. LEXIS 244
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 4, 1989·No. 457PA88·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

FRYE, Justice.

The issues in this case are virtually identical to those in Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 289, 378 S.E. 2d 21 (1989), and Parrish v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 323, 378 S.E. 2d 419 (1989). Factually, this case differs only in that a settlement was reached without a lawsuit after a failed attempt to procure the consent of the underinsured motorist coverage carrier to the settlement. These differences are not material to our disposition of this appeal.

For the reasons fully and aptly stated in Silvers and Parrish, we hold that plaintiffs entry into a settlement with the tortfeasor [431]*431without defendant’s consent does not bar his claim for underinsured motorist benefits as a matter of law.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. However, the case must be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court to determine whether defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs failure to procure its consent to the settlement.

Modified and affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 378 S.E.2d 748, 324 N.C. 430, 1989 N.C. LEXIS 244 (N.C. 1989).

378 S.E.2d 748 (Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Ag Ins. sa/nv
2018 NCBC 52 (North Carolina Business Court, 2018)
Bond/Tec, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
622 S.E.2d 165 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company
378 S.E.2d 748 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989)