Legal Opinion

George v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 7, 1991No. 9030SC930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORR, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. “Review of summary judgment on appeal is limited to whether the trial court’s conclusions are correct as to the questions of whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment.” Vernon v. Barrow, 95 N.C. App. 642, 643, 383 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1989).

Defendant first assigns as error the failure of the trial court to hold the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s claims…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bernard v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Vernon v. BarrowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Adams v. BassCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Adams v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. George v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  2. State Ex Rel. State Art Museum Building Commission v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  3. George v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  4. In Re Se. Eye Ctr. (Pending Matters), 2021 Ncbc 27aNorth Carolina Business Court · 2021
  5. State Ex Rel. State Art Museum Building Commission v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API