COA: NC Has Persoanl Jurisdiction Over Broker Of Property Insurance
In Wells Fargo Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., the COA held that the trial court properly denied an insurance broker's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where the broker helped procure insurance on North Carolina property.
The plaintiff alleged that the broker misrepresented that an apartment complex in Greensboro was insured but then failed to provide the coverage that the broker represented existed. The broker sought to be dismissed from the suit, claiming it did not have any offices, property, agents, or employees in North Carolina, did not advertise in North Carolina or in media that might reach North Carolina, and did not solicit potential clients or do business in North Carolina.
The plaintiff presented evidence that the broker (1) voluntarily assumed an obligation to obtain insurance on North Carolina real estate, (2) provided "Evidence of Property Insurance" forms indicating that the North Carolina real estate was covered, and (3) received compensation for procuring the insurance.
Because of the plaintiff's evidence and because the plaintiff's claims against the broker arose out of the broker's conduct directed at North Carolina property, the COA held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1- 75.4(6), which provides long-arm jurisdiction as to local property and which has not previously been held to apply to insurance brokers, applied and that the broker could properly be brought into NC courts.
The plaintiff alleged that the broker misrepresented that an apartment complex in Greensboro was insured but then failed to provide the coverage that the broker represented existed. The broker sought to be dismissed from the suit, claiming it did not have any offices, property, agents, or employees in North Carolina, did not advertise in North Carolina or in media that might reach North Carolina, and did not solicit potential clients or do business in North Carolina.
The plaintiff presented evidence that the broker (1) voluntarily assumed an obligation to obtain insurance on North Carolina real estate, (2) provided "Evidence of Property Insurance" forms indicating that the North Carolina real estate was covered, and (3) received compensation for procuring the insurance.
Because of the plaintiff's evidence and because the plaintiff's claims against the broker arose out of the broker's conduct directed at North Carolina property, the COA held that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1- 75.4(6), which provides long-arm jurisdiction as to local property and which has not previously been held to apply to insurance brokers, applied and that the broker could properly be brought into NC courts.
1 Comments:
What happened to 7 October 2008? The (COA) issued 30 published opinions and 36 unpublished opinions. Noteworthy was one buried in the bowels of Rule 30e. Stacy, ex rel v Merrill, et al, (08-437) is a very interesting case. The (COA)’s analysis of the case was only six lines. The case was said to be controlled by prior holdings! No analysis on he “Abuse of Discretion” standard for a Rule 60(b) motion. The real question, was it an abuse of discretion to rule on the wavier of sovereign immunity. The (COA) did not deal with “abuse of discretion” Your thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home