Huber Engineered Woods, LLC v. Canal Insurance Company

700 S.E.2d 220, 364 N.C. 413, 2010 N.C. LEXIS 726
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 8, 2010·No. 168A10·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying action at issue. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating the portion of the trial court’s order of summary judgment that found defendant has a duty to indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action. This case is re *414 manded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

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

Huber Engineered Woods, LLC v. Canal Insurance Company, 700 S.E.2d 220, 364 N.C. 413, 2010 N.C. LEXIS 726 (N.C. 2010).

700 S.E.2d 220 (Huber Engineered Woods, LLC v. Canal Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Union Fire Insurance v. Greenwich Insurance
103 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co.
825 N.W.2d 695 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2013)
Pro Con, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.
794 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D. Maine, 2011)