Buchanan v. Buchanan

350 S.E.2d 175, 83 N.C. App. 428, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2712
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 25, 1986
Docket8624SC355
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 350 S.E.2d 175 (Buchanan v. Buchanan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 350 S.E.2d 175, 83 N.C. App. 428, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2712 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the affidavits offered by plaintiff and the State Farm insurance adjuster who was involved in the signing of the release form indicate that the release was executed without any intention to excuse any other persons or firms. Plaintiff, citing Cunningham v. Brown, 51 N.C. App. 264, 276 S.E. 2d 718 (1981), contends that the failure to accomplish this result constituted a mutual mistake of fact which required denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

The Cunningham case is not dispositive on the issue involved in the case sub judice. In Cunningham, the plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband when they were struck by a tractor-trailer. For consideration, the plaintiff signed a release concerning any claim which she might have had against her husband and his insurance company. As a result of this signing she also released from liability “any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility or liability,” which included the driver of the other vehicle. Id. at 269, 276 S.E. 2d at 723.

In Cunningham, the plaintiff claimed that before she signed the release the insurance adjuster assured her that no other claims would be affected. In that case, the court held that the plaintiff could avoid the effect of the signed release by showing that it was procured by fraud or through mutual mistake of fact. Id.

In the case sub judice, such avoidance is not possible because the defendant insurance company’s liability is derivative in nature. See Durham v. Creech, 32 N.C. App. 55, 231 S.E. 2d 163 *430 (1977). The policy states that the Travelers Indemnity Company is liable to plaintiff only if the insured is “legally entitled to recover” from the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle. Having settled and signed a release, neither plaintiff nor her husband can recover further damages from the parties covered by State Farm. Both plaintiff and her husband fully intended to release David Givens and Thomas and Jimmy Joe O’Connor, and they are now no longer “legally entitled to recover” from such parties. When the release was signed, the Travelers Indemnity Company was also released as a matter of law because of the derivative nature of the insurance company’s liability. Once the plaintiff released all claims against Givens and the O’Connors, there is no basis of liability on which the defendant insurance company can be held responsible under the terms of the policy. We, therefore, hold that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Orr concur.

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

Related

Sawyers v. Farm Bureau Insurance
612 S.E.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Pennington
573 S.E.2d 118 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2002)
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Edwards
572 S.E.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Pennington
541 S.E.2d 503 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance v. Holeman
1998 MT 155 (Montana Supreme Court, 1998)
NC Farm Bureau, Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bost
483 S.E.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters Insurance
478 S.E.2d 197 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
Grimsley v. Nelson
467 S.E.2d 92 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
Grimsley v. Nelson
451 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Lida Manufacturing Co. v. United States Fire Insurance
448 S.E.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Spivey v. Lowery
446 S.E.2d 835 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Darby v. Mathis
441 S.E.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Silvers v. Horace Mann Insurance
378 S.E.2d 21 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989)
Starr v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
548 A.2d 22 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1988)
Silvers v. Horace Mann Insurance
367 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
350 S.E.2d 175, 83 N.C. App. 428, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-buchanan-ncctapp-1986.