Legal Opinion

Hieb v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 2, 1993No. 9226SC1122PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Hartford permitting Hartford to reduce the limits of its UIM coverage by any amounts paid or to be paid to Mrs. Hieb or on her behalf by St. Paul as workers’ compensation benefits. We agree.

When a motion for summary judgment is granted, the questions for determination on appeal are whether, on the basis of the materials presented at trial, there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Smith, 65 N.C. App.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sproles v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Smith v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Manning v. FletcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Ohio Casualty Group v. OwensCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  5. Sproles v. GreeneCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hieb v. LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  2. Hieb v. LoweryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  3. McMillian v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Creed v. R.G. Swaim & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Hieb v. LoweryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

9 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