Amicus Briefs

stripes

Amicus briefs are a powerful weapon in the fight for fairness.

The troubles and hardships of an individual plaintiff or criminal defendant can often expose the flaws and weaknesses in our judicial system. When that happens, and the gears of the appellate machine begin to turn, the amicus brief helps train a spotlight on specific systemic and legal problems.  

NCAJ filed its first amicus brief in 1978. In the decades since, NCAJ volunteers have written hundreds of amicus briefs, filed in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

These opinions have focused attention on civil rights, workers’ rights, the rights of the bereaved, the rights of the insured, the rights of criminal defendants, immigrants’ rights and land holders’ rights, to name a few concerns.

If you have a case that presents a new or unresolved question of law, and its resolution may have a broad impact on your area of practice, consider engaging us to participate as amicus.

Engage NCAJ to Participate as Amicus

Complete the Form

Butterfield v. Gray

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Noah Abrams Rachel Fuerst
Amicus Brief Writers Matthew Ballew Karonnie Truzy
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-218

This case involved the egregious death of a jail inmate who was experiencing a known psychotic episode and, rather than provide him the medical care and protection required by law, the Sheriff and his deputies allowed him to slowly die of dehydration and starvation of a period of three weeks with no medical.

NC NAACP v. Moore, et. al

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kimberley Hunter
Amicus Brief Writers Doug Abrams Noah Abrams Matthew Lee
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 261A18-3

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in support of the North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”). The trial court had determined that legislation proposing constitutional amendments meant to entrench the political party in power was void because (a) the General Assembly proposing it was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering and (b) without that illegal racial gerrymandering, the legislature would never have met the constitutionally-required threshold to propose a constitutional amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, with a dissent by Judge Reuben Young, and the NAACP appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Sarah Willingham
Amicus Brief Writers Andrew Schwaba Adam Langino
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-687

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals advocating for creating a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery once a prima facie case of jurisdiction has been shown. NCAJ argued that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiff’s counsel and opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to contest the Defendants’ contention it was not subject jurisdiction in North Carolina. The trial court did not rule on Plaintiff’s motion to overrule Defendants’ objections to his jurisdictional-based discovery. Instead, in reaching its conclusion, the trial court relied on a 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants from another matter and an affidavit of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Cunningham v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kathleen Sumner
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Vernon Sumwalt
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 465A20

Before considering the merits of a controversy, courts must first determine if they have the legal capacity to hear the controversy. Courts can answer this question at all levels, even for the first time on appeal, and earlier cases have held that our appellate courts can do so without restraint from what inferior courts have already determined. So, when a majority of the Court of Appeals in Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. reversed the Industrial Commission’s dismissal on the assumption that the Commission did not have jurisdiction, the question was whether our appellate courts were bound by the facts found by the Commission or if they could look at the facts with fresh eyes.

Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Services, Inc.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Jeremy Wilson
Amicus Brief Writers Vernon Sumwalt David Stradley
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 33A21

Trial judges are empowered with sound discretion to instruct juries as efficiently and comprehensively as they choose, as long as doing so is not legal error and will cover all disputed issues of fact in a case. In Keith v. Pro-Health, a majority of the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict favoring the plaintiff and insisted—as a matter of law—that the trial judge should have instructed on negligent hiring instead of the instruction given for ordinary negligence, even though…

State v. Edgardo Gandarilla Nunez

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Nicholas Woomer-Deters
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Tom Maher
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 255PA20

NCAJ filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the defendants in these two cases currently before the N.C. Supreme Court. The briefs argue that prosecutors’ decisions not to reinstate certain criminal cases to the district court docket must be subjected to judicial review. The defendants in these cases were initially charged with driving while impaired in Wake County. When each did not appear in court, prosecutors decided to dismiss the cases with leave, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-932. Both defendants’ drivers’ licenses were revoked by the DMV, pursuant to another N.C. statute concerning failure to appear, and both defendants were subsequently charged with driving while license revoked.

State v. Rogelio Albino Diaz-Tomas

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Anton Lebedev
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Tom Maher
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 54A19-3

NCAJ filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the defendants in these two cases currently before the N.C. Supreme Court. The briefs argue that prosecutors’ decisions not to reinstate certain criminal cases to the district court docket must be subjected to judicial review. The defendants in these cases were initially charged with driving while impaired in Wake County. When each did not appear in court, prosecutors decided to dismiss the cases with leave, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-932. Both defendants’ drivers’ licenses were revoked by the DMV, pursuant to another N.C. statute concerning failure to appear, and both defendants were subsequently charged with driving while license revoked.

Nay v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions, et al.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kathleen Sumner
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Stewart Poisson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 409PA20

Nay v. Cornerstone concerns the proper method for calculating the average weekly wages of employees of temporary employment agencies. The Industrial Commission elected to divide the wages earned over roughly 13 weeks by 52 weeks resulting in a relatively minimal average weekly wage. The NCAJ offered amicus assistance at the Court of Appeals level.

Copeland v. Amward Homes Of N.C., Inc., et al.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case William Bystrynski
Amicus Brief Writers Jon Ward Erwin Byrd
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 56PA20

NCAJ filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs, parents of a young boy who was killed by an unattended, runaway dump truck in the Hillsborough planned community where the family lived.  Parts of the housing development were still under construction, and the dump truck rolled from a lot that was being graded for building across the street from plaintiffs’ home.

State v. Darrell Tristan Anderson

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kathryn L. Vandenberg
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 23A21

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

State v. James Ryan Kelliher

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kathryn L. Vandenberg
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 442PA20

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

State v. Riley Dawson Conner

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Andrew DiSimone
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 64A21

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

Rural Empowerment Ass’n for Cmty. Help v. State of N.C

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Elizabeth Haddix Mark Dorosin Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Christopher A. Brook
Amicus Brief Writers Matthew Ballew
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 21-175

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the N.C. Court of Appeals arguing that two recent tort reform statutes were facially unconstitutional. By way of background, this case arises from the recent “hog farm” litigations and jury trials against Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the world. In those litigations, multiple homeowners and residents in eastern NC counties living nearby to open air hog waste cesspools – (euphemistically called “lagoons”) filed lawsuits against Smithfield alleging common law nuisance claims under NC law. These plaintiffs sought recovery for noneconomic damages that have been allowed under the nuisance common law for hundreds of years, e.g. loss of enjoyment of their homes, discomfort, and annoyance damages. In five straight jury trials conducted in the EDNC, before five different juries, each set of plaintiffs won multimillion verdicts against Smithfield for both compensatory and punitive damages.

State v. Marzouq

Opinion Filed December 03, 2019
Attorney for the Case Jim Melo
Amicus Brief Writers Raul Pinto Helen Parsonage
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-471

The North Carolina Advocates for Justice, along with the North Carolina Justice Center, filed an amicis brief in the NC Court of Appeals on behalf of Mr. Ali Awni Said Marzouq.  Mr. Marzouq, a legal permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to two drug related charges.  His criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise Mr. Marzouq of the consequences his plea would have on his immigration status.

Hamlet H.M.A. v. Hernandez

Opinion Filed December 06, 2019
Attorney for the Case Mark Hayes
Amicus Brief Writers Laura Wetsch Jon Wall
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 425A18

When the North Carolina Legislature enacted, and then amended, the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), it made clear that the statute’s intent was to broadly cover commercial activities.  However, in response to legislator concerns that the UDTPA not create another cause of action for malpractice claims, the UDTPA expressly exempted “professional services rendered by a learned professional.”  Thus, a doctor or a lawyer cannot be sued under the UDTPA for injury caused by the professional services they provide to their patients or clients.

Rouse v. Forsyth County

Opinion Filed February 28, 2020
Attorney for the Case Ben Winikoff
Amicus Brief Writers John Gresham Travis Payne
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 1PA19

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeals decision completely ignored provisions of N.C.G.S. 126 , the State Human Resources Act (SHRA), that specifically authorize an administrative law judge to award employees covered by the SHRA back pay and attorney’s fees when it is determined that the employee was illegally fired.

State v. Golder

Opinion Filed April 03, 2020
Attorney for the Case Anne Bleyman
Amicus Brief Writers John Carella Glenn Gerding Ivy Johnson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 79PA18

NCAJ recently filed amicus curiae briefs in two criminal cases pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court – State v. Golder and State v. Smith. In both cases, the Court of Appeals denied review of meritorious arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence because, at trial, defense counsel supplemented a general motion to dismiss with a specific argument. Under one recent line of Court of Appeals case law, defense counsel’s oral argument “narrowed” the general motion to dismiss, which would otherwise have preserved a challenge to every element of the crime.

Chappell v. NCDOT

Opinion Filed May 01, 2020
Attorney for the Case Matthew Bryant
Amicus Brief Writers Shiloh Daum Joan Davis
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 51PA19

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court urging the justices to affirm a Cumberland County jury’s verdict and post-trial rulings that compensated landowners for by takings by NCDOT pursuant to the “Map Act”.  The Map Act prohibited the improvement, subdivision, and development of land located within certain protected corridors that were set aside for future NCDOT road projects.  DOT did not acquire their land through condemnation, however,  which left owners trapped for decades and unable to sell or fully benefit from their assets as their property values plummeted.  The Court previously ruled in Kirby v. DOT that the Map Act’s restrictions constituted a taking.

Vincent v. AMCO

Opinion Filed August 04, 2020
Attorney for the Case John Loftin
Amicus Brief Writers Shawn Howard Jay Trehy Jon Ward
Court 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-1401

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a catastrophically injured small business owner. The Plaintiff suffered life changing injuries, including multiple broken bones, internal organ injuries, and a traumatic brain injury, when his motorcycle was struck by a negligent motorist.

Ha v. Nationwide

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case John Kirby
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 312A19

Plaintiffs, who had recently contracted and paid for homeowners’ insurance, lost their home to a fire.  The homeowners called their insurer, Nationwide, and were notified for the first time that their insurance policy had been cancelled two months prior.  At trial, Nationwide argued that mailing the cancellation notice via regular mail satisfied N.C.G.S. § 58-41-15(c), which requires the insurance company to “furnish” notice of cancellation of insurance policies in existence for sixty days or fewer.  The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeals determined that the Legislature, with N.C.G.S. § 58-41-15(c), intended to require the insurance company to prove delivery, rather than mere mailing, of the cancellation notice.

Da Silva v. WakeMed, et. al.

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case Gregory Kash
Amicus Brief Writers Stephen Gugenheim Anna Kalarites
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 326PA18

A woman who suffered injuries that resulted from the negligent prescription of Levaquin. The trial court excluded Plaintiff’s sole expert, Dr. Paul Genecin, an internal medicine physician, after finding that Dr. Genecin did not qualify under N.C. Rule E. 702(b) because he was not of the “same specialty” as the hospitalist defendants and, although he was of a “similar specialty,” he did not spend the majority of his professional time in the clinical practice of hospital medicine.  The trial court also held that Dr. Genecin’s testimony on proximate cause was legally insufficient.  As a result of the trial court’s findings, summary judgment was rendered for defendant.

State v. Smith

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case Jason Yoder
Amicus Brief Writers John Carella Glenn Gerding Ivy Johnson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 119PA18

NCAJ recently filed amicus curiae briefs in two criminal cases pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court – State v. Golder and State v. Smith. In both cases, the Court of Appeals denied review of meritorious arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence because, at trial, defense counsel supplemented a general motion to dismiss with a specific argument. Under one recent line of Court of Appeals case law, defense counsel’s oral argument “narrowed” the general motion to dismiss, which would otherwise have preserved a challenge to every element of the crime.

Saunders v. Hull Prop. Grp., LLC

Opinion Filed September 15, 2020
Attorney for the Case David Stradley
Amicus Brief Writers Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Trisha S. Pande Patricia Timmons-Goodson
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-728

This case squarely presents the issue of whether the North Carolina Supreme Court should abandon the harsh and antiquated defense of contributory negligence, and adopt the modern doctrine of comparative fault. In this premises liability case, the trial judge rejected plaintiff’s timely request for a jury instruction on comparative fault.

Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Opinion Filed September 25, 2020
Attorney for the Case Kent Brown Jon Moore
Amicus Brief Writers Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Trisha S. Pande
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 18PA19

In Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, a wrongful death action, the jury found the hospital liable for medical and administrative negligence and awarded $5,500,000 in non-economic damages. The Court of Appeals overturned the verdict on administrative negligence and vacated the award of non-economic damages. NCAJ submitted an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s successful petition for discretionary review. In the Supreme Court, NCAJ’s amicus brief addressed two issues.

NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co v. Martin

Opinion Filed December 18, 2020
Attorney for the Case Jeffrey Breit
Amicus Brief Writers Paul Coates Ann Ochsner Jon Ward
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 391A19

This brief addresses the applicability of UIM coverage to “residents” of the same “household” in the context of multiple structures located on a family farm.

Parkes v. Hermann

Opinion Filed December 18, 2020
Attorney for the Case Adam Melrose Mark Melrose
Amicus Brief Writers D. Hardison Wood Charles Monnett, III
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 241PA19

This case presents the issue of whether North Carolina recognizes the “lost chances” theory of recovery in medical malpractice actions.

In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was experiencing symptoms consistent with early onset of stroke.  She was taken to the emergency room.  Despite her presentation of stroke-like symptoms, her physician did not order administration of tPA within a three hour window, as required by the standard of care.  According to the only expert testimony in the record, had the tPA been promptly administered, the plaintiff would have had an ~40% chance of recovery with no significant morbidities.  By failing to administer the tPA, the defendant obliterated these chances.  At summary judgment, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because her chances were not above 50%.

Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control, Inc.

Opinion Filed March 12, 2021
Attorney for the Case Christian Ayers
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Stewart Poisson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 29A20

This is a workers’ compensation case that involves issues pertaining to disability and suitable employment.  One method that an injured worker may use to prove disability involves a showing that it would be futile due to age, limited education, inexperience or other factors for the injured worker to search for work.  Here, Mr. Griffin continued to work for Absolute in light duty work but alleged that the job was not suitable employment and that he was disabled.  The Full Industrial Commission held that Mr. Griffin presented “no evidence” of futility of jobs search, even though he presented uncontested evidence that he was 49 years of age; had only a ninth grade education; had only ever worked in construction and pipefitting; had restrictions of no lifting greater than 20 pounds, amongst others, which disabled him from pipefitting; and that he needed to leave work at times due to pain.  His treating physician had also recommended vocational rehabilitation which the Commission found had not yet been provided.

Gay v. Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C., et al.

Opinion Filed March 12, 2021
Attorney for the Case Rebecca Britton Rachel Fuerst
Amicus Brief Writers Narendra Ghosh
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 190A20

This case presents the issue of whether skilled nursing facilities owe a fiduciary duty to their patient-residents. Because skilled nursing facilities are healthcare providers, they should be held to the same fiduciary duty that the Supreme Court announced in King v. Bryant. A fiduciary duty for skilled nursing facilities is consistent with federal and state laws and regulations, which recognize that these institutions are entrusted to care for a uniquely vulnerable population. In addition, the purported arbitration agreement in this case is unenforceable. The document does not state that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes and lacks all other essential terms. There was simply no meeting of the minds to arbitrate.

Armento v. Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry, Inc

Opinion Filed April 21, 2021
Attorney for the Case Carol Brook Clermont Ripley
Amicus Brief Writers Kevin Murphy Travis Payne
Court 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-1100

The plaintiff is asking the 4th Circuit to interpret the North Carolina Wage Hour Act. The NCWHA is very similar to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and judges often use case law from the FLSA to guide interpretation of the NCWHA. NCAJ’s amicus could educate the Court about the interaction between the two statutes, the background and policy behind the NCWHA, and any ways in which the WDNC decision might diverge from current NC case law. We want the court to get the law right, and this is an area where our members’ expertise would be valuable.

Town of Apex v. Rubin

Opinion Filed May 04, 2021
Attorney for the Case Matthew Nis Leerberg Kenneth C. Haywood Joan Davis
Amicus Brief Writers R. Susanne Todd Maisha M. Blakeney Shiloh Daum Jonathan D. Guze
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20COA-304 & 20COA-305

The companion amicus briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals are for a pair of cases defending the constitutional mandate that condemnation must require a public use or benefit, and that condemnors cannot assert inverse condemnation as an offensive claim to take private property. The John Locke Foundation joined NCAJ on the briefs to support the arguments to preserve the fundamental rights of property owners.

State v. Daw

Opinion Filed May 04, 2021
Attorney for the Case Jim Melo Rob Heroy
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-680

In its amicus brief to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, NCAJ argued that the writ of habeas corpus in North Carolina is available to prisoners who are subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. NCAJ contended that the spread of COVID-19 through North Carolina’s prisons, the demonstrated inability of the Department of Public Safety to protect inmates from the deadly virus, and the particular susceptibility to coronavirus of habeas petitioner Philip Daw, who suffers from asthma and other severe respiratory illnesses, are a sufficient basis for granting habeas review.  Rather than granting such review, or any hearing of any kind, the Superior Court of Wake County summarily denied Mr. Daw’s habeas petition, on the grounds that NC General Statute section 17-4 prohibits habeas relief for anyone confined pursuant to a final judgment of a competent court with jurisdiction.

Deminski v. The State Board Of Education, et al.

Opinion Filed June 11, 2021
Attorney for the Case Troy D. Shelton Matthew Nis Leerberg
Amicus Brief Writers Mark Dorosin Elizabeth Haddix Maria Perry
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 60A20

The issues presented in Deminski that were addressed in the NCAJ’s brief were: (1) whether the right to education, as guaranteed under Article I, Section 15 of the North Carolina Constitution, includes the right to access a sound basic education (SBE); (2) whether a violation of the education right unrelated to the characteristics of a SBE is actionable; and (3) whether sovereign immunity is available to government actors as a defense to a Section 15 claim.

NC Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, Inc. v. Lunsford

Opinion Filed August 13, 2021
Attorney for the Case Jason Burton
Amicus Brief Writers Jon Moore Doug Maynard
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 242A20

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in support of the Defendant-Insured in a declaratory judgment action instituted by the Defendant’s automobile insurance company. The Defendant-Insured was severely injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. This at-fault driver was insured by a Tennessee liability policy with $50,000 in liability coverage and $50,000 in Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. The Defendant-Insured had $50,000 in UIM coverage under her own auto policy issued by NCFB.