262 N.C. App. 169
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Boone Ford sued IME Scheduler over a failed Raptor vehicle transaction; IME and third-party Cash for Crash counterclaimed against Boone Ford (including UDTP, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion claims).
- At trial the jury found Boone Ford not liable for Cash for Crash’s conversion of $206,596 wired funds and denied Cash for Crash’s JNOV motion; Cash for Crash failed to move for a directed verdict at trial.
- The jury found Boone Ford had wrongfully retained $40,385.50 of IME’s funds and that the retention affected commerce, but also found Boone Ford’s conduct did not proximately cause injury to IME and awarded IME $0.00 for UDTP.
- The jury awarded Boone Ford $20,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive damages against IME for fraud/UDTP; trial court entered final judgment for $70,000 against IME.
- The trial court granted Boone Ford’s directed verdict motion on IME’s negligent misrepresentation claim; IME appealed after a prior appellate disposition on consolidation issues was reversed by the state Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cash for Crash was entitled to JNOV on conversion | Cash for Crash: Jury verdict finding no conversion was erroneous; JNOV should have been granted | Boone Ford: Cash for Crash waived JNOV by failing to move for directed verdict at close of evidence | Denied — appeal waived because no directed-verdict motion was made, so JNOV not preserved |
| Whether jury verdict re: IME’s UDTP (wrongful retention but no proximate cause/damages) is inconsistent and requires remedy | IME: Finding of wrongful retention + commerce requires proximate cause/damages or, at minimum, an offset of $8,385.50 | Boone Ford: Jury found no proximate cause and $0 damages; IME never moved for a new trial on inconsistency | Denied — inconsistency not preserved (no Rule 59 motion); proximate cause and damages properly left to jury |
| Whether directed verdict on IME’s negligent misrepresentation claim was erroneous | IME: Evidence supported negligent misrepresentation and should have gone to jury | Boone Ford: Economic-loss rule bars tort recovery arising from contract; no separate duty; even if error it was harmless since contract terms controverted reliance | Affirmed — economic-loss rule bars the claim; even if error, any submission would be harmless due to unjustified reliance shown by jury’s contract finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Graves v. Walston, 302 N.C. 332 (1979) (directed verdict required to preserve JNOV motion)
- Walker v. Walker, 143 N.C. App. 414 (2001) (Rule 59 new-trial motion required to preserve claim of inconsistent jury answers)
- Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 (2009) (standard for directed verdict review)
- Davis v. Dennis Lilly Co., 330 N.C. 314 (1991) (directed verdict legal standard discussion)
- Manganello v. Permastone, Inc., 291 N.C. 666 (1977) (directed verdict appropriate when plaintiff cannot recover under any view of the evidence)
- Walker v. Town of Stoneville, 211 N.C. App. 24 (2011) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Simms v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., 140 N.C. App. 529 (2000) (negligent misrepresentation framework)
- Rayle Tech., Inc. v. DEKALB Swine Breeders, Inc., 133 F.3d 1405 (11th Cir. 1998) (contract terms can negate justifiable reliance)
- Sledge v. Miller, 249 N.C. 447 (1959) (harmless-error doctrine where jury findings negate entitlement to relief)