BRADY, Justice.
In this case we determine whether, as a matter of law, a claim for punitive damages may be asserted against a decedent’s estate on the basis of his alleged “egregiously wrongful acts.” We hold that it may not and therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
BACKGROUND
On 19 May 2005, plaintiff Richard Harrell filed a summons and complaint initiating a civil action against Melvin Bowen (defendant) in his capacity as administrator of Chelson Earl Perry’s (decedent’s) estate. In his complaint, plaintiff stated that he was operating a passenger vehicle traveling westbound on U.S. Highway 64 on 6 June 2002, at approximately 9:45 p.m. He asserted that decedent, who was operating another passenger vehicle traveling eastbound at the time, veered across the median and struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff further alleged that decedent was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and otherwise acted negligently and was grossly negligent in violation of several North Carolina motor vehicle safety laws. In his complaint, plaintiff sought compensatory damages for [144]*144pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages, and property damage, and he additionally prayed for punitive damages.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On 7 November 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion and subsequently ordered plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the order on 17 October 2006. Plaintiff then petitioned this Court for discretionary review, and we allowed the petition on 3 May 2007.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive question before the Court is whether plaintiff is barred as a matter of law from asserting a claim for punitive damages against defendant in his capacity as the administrator of decedent’s estate. See Newberne v. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 359 N.C. 782, 784, 618 S.E.2d 201, 203 (2005) (“A motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ‘is the usual and proper method of testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.’ ” (quoting Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 98, 176 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1970))). As the Court stated in Newbeme, our task in reviewing the trial court’s order dismissing this claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to inquire “whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
I. “The Purpose of Punitive Damages” in N.C.G.S. § ID-1
Plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § ID-1 sets forth the controlling legal theory upon which his claim for punitive damages may rest. This statute provides: “Punitive damages may be awarded, in an appropriate case and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, to punish a defendant for egregiously wrongful acts and to deter the defendant and others from committing similar wrongful acts.” N.C.G.S. § ID-1 (2005) (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that punitive damages may be awarded to deter others from similar wrongful acts, even though it is obvious that decedent could neither be punished for any wrongdoing nor deterred from committing similar wrongful acts in the future.
[145]*145It is axiomatic that “[w]hen the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute, and judicial construction of legislative intent is not required.” See Diaz v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006) (citation omitted). This Court has also stated that “[o]rdinarily, when the conjunctive ‘and’ connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to be considered jointly.” Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 535, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964) (citation omitted). In Sale v. Johnson, this Court recognized a limited number of circumstances in which the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” could be interchanged by a court when applying a statute, one of which is “io effectuate the obvious intention of the legislature.” 258 N.C. 749, 755-56, 129 S.E.2d 465, 469 (1963) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, we can discern no obvious legislative intent to treat the purposes of punishment and deterrence disjunctively in N.C.G.S. § ID-1. The same must be said for the purpose of deterring a defendant and that of deterring others. As this Court has clearly stated, “Chapter ID reinforces the common-law purpose behind punitive damages.” Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 167, 594 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2004) (citing N.C.G.S. § ID-1). Plaintiff cites no authority preceding the enactment of Chapter ID in 1995 in which this Court held that the purpose of deterring others, standing alone, was sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. In fact, when this Court has identified the purpose of deterring others, that purpose has consistently been coupled with the purpose of punishing a wrongdoer. See, e.g., Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 291 N.C. 105, 113, 229 S.E.2d 297, 302 (1976) (“North Carolina has consistently allowed punitive damages solely on the basis of its policy to punish intentional wrongdoing and to deter others from similar behavior.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)); Oestreicher v. Am. Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 134, 225 S.E.2d 797, 807 (1976) (stating that punitive damages “are usually allowed to punish defendant and deter others” (emphasis added)). Nor has this Court interpreted N.C.G.S. § ID-1 as abrogating the pre-existing common law. See, e.g., Rhyne, 358 N.C. at 176, 594 S.E.2d at 12 (“A plaintiff’s recovery of punitive damages is fortuitous, as such damages are assessed solely as a means to punish the willful and wanton actions of defendants and, unlike compensatory damages, do not vest in a plaintiff upon injury.” (citation omitted)).
[146]*146Plaintiff contends this obvious legislative intent to have courts read “and” as a disjunctive “or” in N.C.G.S. § ID-1 is found in N.C.G.S. § ID-26. This statute exempts from the “statutory cap” on punitive damages claims established by N.C.G.S. § ID-25 any punitive damages sought “for injury or harm arising from a defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle if the actions of the defendant in operating the motor vehicle would give rise to an offense of driving while impaired under G.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BRADY, Justice.
In this case we determine whether, as a matter of law, a claim for punitive damages may be asserted against a decedent’s estate on the basis of his alleged “egregiously wrongful acts.” We hold that it may not and therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
BACKGROUND
On 19 May 2005, plaintiff Richard Harrell filed a summons and complaint initiating a civil action against Melvin Bowen (defendant) in his capacity as administrator of Chelson Earl Perry’s (decedent’s) estate. In his complaint, plaintiff stated that he was operating a passenger vehicle traveling westbound on U.S. Highway 64 on 6 June 2002, at approximately 9:45 p.m. He asserted that decedent, who was operating another passenger vehicle traveling eastbound at the time, veered across the median and struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff further alleged that decedent was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and otherwise acted negligently and was grossly negligent in violation of several North Carolina motor vehicle safety laws. In his complaint, plaintiff sought compensatory damages for [144]*144pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages, and property damage, and he additionally prayed for punitive damages.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On 7 November 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion and subsequently ordered plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the order on 17 October 2006. Plaintiff then petitioned this Court for discretionary review, and we allowed the petition on 3 May 2007.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive question before the Court is whether plaintiff is barred as a matter of law from asserting a claim for punitive damages against defendant in his capacity as the administrator of decedent’s estate. See Newberne v. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 359 N.C. 782, 784, 618 S.E.2d 201, 203 (2005) (“A motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ‘is the usual and proper method of testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.’ ” (quoting Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 98, 176 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1970))). As the Court stated in Newbeme, our task in reviewing the trial court’s order dismissing this claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to inquire “whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
I. “The Purpose of Punitive Damages” in N.C.G.S. § ID-1
Plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § ID-1 sets forth the controlling legal theory upon which his claim for punitive damages may rest. This statute provides: “Punitive damages may be awarded, in an appropriate case and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, to punish a defendant for egregiously wrongful acts and to deter the defendant and others from committing similar wrongful acts.” N.C.G.S. § ID-1 (2005) (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that punitive damages may be awarded to deter others from similar wrongful acts, even though it is obvious that decedent could neither be punished for any wrongdoing nor deterred from committing similar wrongful acts in the future.
[145]*145It is axiomatic that “[w]hen the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute, and judicial construction of legislative intent is not required.” See Diaz v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006) (citation omitted). This Court has also stated that “[o]rdinarily, when the conjunctive ‘and’ connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to be considered jointly.” Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 535, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964) (citation omitted). In Sale v. Johnson, this Court recognized a limited number of circumstances in which the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” could be interchanged by a court when applying a statute, one of which is “io effectuate the obvious intention of the legislature.” 258 N.C. 749, 755-56, 129 S.E.2d 465, 469 (1963) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, we can discern no obvious legislative intent to treat the purposes of punishment and deterrence disjunctively in N.C.G.S. § ID-1. The same must be said for the purpose of deterring a defendant and that of deterring others. As this Court has clearly stated, “Chapter ID reinforces the common-law purpose behind punitive damages.” Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 167, 594 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2004) (citing N.C.G.S. § ID-1). Plaintiff cites no authority preceding the enactment of Chapter ID in 1995 in which this Court held that the purpose of deterring others, standing alone, was sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. In fact, when this Court has identified the purpose of deterring others, that purpose has consistently been coupled with the purpose of punishing a wrongdoer. See, e.g., Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 291 N.C. 105, 113, 229 S.E.2d 297, 302 (1976) (“North Carolina has consistently allowed punitive damages solely on the basis of its policy to punish intentional wrongdoing and to deter others from similar behavior.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)); Oestreicher v. Am. Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 134, 225 S.E.2d 797, 807 (1976) (stating that punitive damages “are usually allowed to punish defendant and deter others” (emphasis added)). Nor has this Court interpreted N.C.G.S. § ID-1 as abrogating the pre-existing common law. See, e.g., Rhyne, 358 N.C. at 176, 594 S.E.2d at 12 (“A plaintiff’s recovery of punitive damages is fortuitous, as such damages are assessed solely as a means to punish the willful and wanton actions of defendants and, unlike compensatory damages, do not vest in a plaintiff upon injury.” (citation omitted)).
[146]*146Plaintiff contends this obvious legislative intent to have courts read “and” as a disjunctive “or” in N.C.G.S. § ID-1 is found in N.C.G.S. § ID-26. This statute exempts from the “statutory cap” on punitive damages claims established by N.C.G.S. § ID-25 any punitive damages sought “for injury or harm arising from a defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle if the actions of the defendant in operating the motor vehicle would give rise to an offense of driving while impaired under G.S. 20-138.1 [impaired driving generally], 20-138.2 [impaired driving while operating a commercial vehicle], or 20-138.5 [habitual impaired driving].” N.C.G.S. § ID-26 (2005). We certainly acknowledge the General Assembly’s intent in section ID-26 to punish individuals more severely for driving while impaired than for other tortious conduct by exempting such claims from section lD-25(b). However, we cannot infer from section ID-26 an obvious intent to have courts read “and” as a disjunctive in section ID-1, which governs all punitive damages claims.
Because we discern no obvious legislative intent to the contrary, we are constrained to apply the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. § ID-1 to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff concedes that decedent can no longer be punished or deterred for whatever “egregiously wrongful acts” he may have committed before his death. As a consequence, plaintiff is precluded as a matter of law from asserting his claim for punitive damages under N.C.G.S. § ID-1.
II. Survival of Actions Against Personal Representative
Plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that N.C.G.S. § 28A-18-1 allows any claims he may have asserted against decedent to survive against defendant as the administrator of decedent’s estate, including his claim for punitive damages. This statute provides:
(a) Upon the death of any person, all demands whatsoever, and rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding, existing in favor of or against such person, except as provided in subsection (b) hereof, shall survive to and against the personal representative or collector of his estate.
(b) The following rights of action in favor of a decedent do not survive:
(1) Causes of action for libel and for slander, except slander of title;
(2) Causes of action for false imprisonment;
[147]*147(3) Causes of action where the relief sought could not be enjoyed, or granting it would be nugatory after death.
N.C.G.S. § 28A-18-1 (2005). Although punitive damages claims are not expressly excepted by this statute, the General Assembly has mandated that Chapter ID prevails over “any other law to the contrary” with respect to such claims. N.C.G.S. § ID-10 (2005). Thus, since N.C.G.S. § ID-1 precludes plaintiff from asserting a claim for punitive damages against defendant, plaintiff cannot rely upon the “survival statute” to procure a different result.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs claim for punitive damages against defendant must fail as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court did not err when it ordered plaintiffs claim for punitive damages dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.