Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lunsford v. Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 19, 2014No. 385PA13Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Newby

The purpose of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in our state is to serve as a safeguard when tortfeasors’ liability policies do not provide sufficient recovery — that is, when the tortfeasors are “under insured.” This is simply not the case here. Plaintiff incurred damages amounting to $900,000. He brought suit jointly and severally against responsible tortfeasors whose total liability limits were $1,050,000. Those combined liability limits were more than sufficient to satisfy plaintiff’s damages and were more than twice as high as plaintiff’s $400,000 UIM limits. Not only does the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Gray v. North Carolina Insurance UnderwritingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. PenningtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  3. Electric Supply Co. of Durham, Inc. v. Swain Electrical Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Sutton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  5. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. ChantosSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API