228 N.C. App. 587
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mantelco employees damaged a plaintiff’s home during satellite-dish installation; plaintiff and tenant displaced while repairs occurred. Plaintiff submitted damages claims to Universal Insurance (Mantelco’s insurer).
- Universal’s adjuster assessed damages at $27,707; plaintiff’s contractor estimated $29,689. Universal made three interim payments totaling $7,000 for relocation and lost rent.
- Plaintiff demanded $38,020. Universal offered to settle for $38,020 provided plaintiff executed a written Release discharging Mantelco and Universal from all present and future claims.
- Plaintiff signed and returned the Release before receiving the balance check; Universal then mailed $31,020 (the $38,020 less prior $7,000). Plaintiff sued claiming breach (he contended he was still owed $38,020 in addition to the $7,000) and asserted an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court granted dismissal; plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff stated a breach-of-contract claim despite signing a release that acknowledged payment "in hand" | Grich argued his signature was a unilateral mistake because he did not know defendants intended to offset the prior $7,000 payments; he sought the full $38,020 plus the $7,000 already paid | Defendants argued the Release was a clear, unambiguous contract stating $38,020 "in hand paid," releasing all present and future claims, so no breach claim exists | Court held Release language was clear and unambiguous; plaintiff’s unilateral mistake (absent fraud or other oppressive conduct) cannot void the contract; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff stated a claim under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) | Grich asserted unfair/deceptive conduct in settling and offsetting prior payments | Defendants argued no deceptive conduct supported by the record because the Release disclosed terms and there was no misrepresentation | Court declined to reach the UDTPA claim because dismissal of the contract claim disposed of the case and the record lacked evidence of unfair or deceptive acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Saint Joseph of the Pines, 187 N.C. App. 198 (2007) (releases are contractual and interpreted under contract principles)
- Claggett v. Wake Forest Univ., 126 N.C. App. 602 (1997) (elements required to plead a breach of contract claim)
- Lowry v. Lowry, 99 N.C. App. 246 (1990) (unilateral mistake without fraud or undue influence cannot avoid a contract)
- Eastway Wrecker Serv., Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 165 N.C. App. 639 (2004) (incorporation of documents attached to a complaint permits consideration on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)