222 N.C. App. 303
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Terry Wood was injured in an automobile collision caused by defendant Jeremy Nunnery in 2006.
- Wood sued Nunnery, Firemen’s Insurance Company of Washington, D.C. (as Firemen’s) and State Farm; Farm Bureau was dismissed.
- Jury awarded Wood $300,000 in 2010; judgment entered for $300,000 plus 8% interest from April 30, 2009.
- State Farm paid $30,000 and Firemen’s paid $202,627.58 into the Forsyth County Clerk; Wood had workers’ compensation liens totaling over $148,000 (reduced to $50,000).
- In December 2010 the trial court declared the judgment paid and satisfied by those payments and denied sanctions; Wood appealed.
- Issue on appeal: whether Firemen’s payments and State Farm payment discharged the judgment; Firemen’s subrogation rights and credits under statutes; and related discovery matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the payments satisfy the judgment against Nunnery? | Wood contends payments do not discharge defendant's tort judgment. | Nunnery and court treated total payments as full satisfaction. | No; judgment not satisfied; remand for further proceedings. |
| Is Firemen’s entitled to credit against the judgment for its UIM payment? | Wood argues Firemen’s credit should be applied to the judgment. | State law requires credit to defendant only for payments made by Firemen’s as UIM carrier. | Firemen’s is not entitled to credit against the judgment; subrogation limits apply differently. |
| Does N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-239 allow a credit beyond the State Farm payment? | Wood seeks broader credits against the judgment. | § 1-239 limits credit to payments to the clerk for the judgment; only State Farm credit applies. | Defendant may credit only the $30,000 State Farm payment; Firemen’s payment not creditable. |
| Was the trial court correct to deny production of Firemen’s policy and subrogation waiver? | Wood sought policy and waiver information. | Subrogation rights control; disclosure is not required for plaintiff. | Denied; policy disclosure not required for plaintiff; subrogation statute governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513 (1989) (relevance to credit against judgment for UIM-related amounts)
- Austin v. Midgett, 166 N.C. App. 740 (2004) (UIM/subrogation computations under statutes)
- Walker v. Penn National, 168 N.C. App. 555 (2005) (UIM-related credit computations and policy considerations)
- Corbett v. Smith, 131 N.C. App. 327 (1998) (statutory control of § 20-279.21; interactions with policy terms)