A recent claim underscores the importance of retaining an attorney who has experience in the courtroom. The plaintiff, a motorcyclist, alleged that she was involved in a collision with a vehicle that was parked along the side of the road and that pulled out in front of him without using a turn signal. The plaintiff testified that as he approached the vehicle and realized it was too late to avoid a collision, he “laid down” the bike and collided with the driver’s side of the defendant’s vehicle. At trial, the defendant testified that she was driving slowly and preparing to turn left into the parking lot of a restaurant when the plaintiff attempted to pass her on the left side of her vehicle. According to the plaintiff, she had engaged her turn signal prior to preparing to turn into the parking lot.

The plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, which asks the court to enter judgment in the moving party’s favor based on the evidence presented at trial. The court denied the motion and the jury concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer any damages as the direct and foreseeable cause of the defendant’s conduct. The plaintiff next filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which asks the judge to set aside the jury’s conclusion as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The plaintiff also filed a motion for a new trial. The plaintiff based both motions on the assertion that the jury disregarded the trial court’s instructions and that the verdict was clearly inappropriate. Both motions were denied and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court ultimately upheld the lower court’s denial of all three motions on the basis that the plaintiff did not properly preserve the assignments of error regarding the motion for a directed verdict and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. At trial, the plaintiff’s attorney made a verbal motion for a directed verdict and failed to submit any written documents in support of the motion. The oral motion did not include any grounds for a directed verdict either.

The court also concluded that because the plaintiff did not properly assert the motion for directed verdict, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was also properly denied because the latter is simply a renewal of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence. Because the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not commit any abuses of its discretion, it also upheld the denial of the motion for a new trial.

If you were hurt in a motorcycle accident, it is critical to have an experienced personal injury attorney at your side to ensure that you are being treated fairly and that you are putting forward the strongest claim possible. Our team of legal professionals proudly serves accident victims and their families throughout North Carolina. To schedule a free consultation, please call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online. We are standing by and ready to help you receive the outcome that you deserve.

A recent North Carolina appellate opinion discussed the applicability of insurance in a crash that involved a motorcyclist and his passenger. The driver of a passenger vehicle containing three passengers lost control of her vehicle, which then collided with the victim’s motorcycle. The motorcycle rider and his passenger died as a result of the crash.

The defendant’s policy provided liability insurance with limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The insurer distributed the coverage to the passengers in the passenger vehicle and to the estates of the motorcyclist and his passenger. The victims’ estates received $17,928 each. The victim also had an insurance policy that provided underinsured motorist coverage with a limit of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The policy was distributed to the victims’ estates in the amount of $82,072 each. Ultimately, each estate received a total of $100,000 for both policies, which comprised the per-person limits of the underinsured motorist policy for the victim’s insurance.

The parties filed declaratory judgment actions in an attempt to resolve a dispute about whether the victim’s insurer was required to provide additional policy benefits. During a summary judgment hearing, the insurance company admitted that the decedents died as a result of the crash, but argued that the limit of liability for all damages should be capped at the per-person limit of $100,000, minus a credit of what the claimants obtained from the at-fault party’s insurance. Representatives of the decedents’ estates argued that the $300,00 per-accident limit from the victim’s policy applied. The court agreed with the decedents’ estates and rejected the insurance company’s request to limit damages at $100,000.

The insurance company appealed. The reviewing court rejected the insurer’s position that the language of the decedent’s policy limited the decedents’ estates to receiving $100,000 under the decedent’s policy. It cited the Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act of 1953, which declared that “the limit of underinsured motorist coverage applicable to any claim is determined to be the difference between the amount paid to the claimant under the exhausted liability policy or policies and the limit of underinsured motorist coverage applicable to the motor vehicle involved in the accident.”

The court also cited prior case law that discussed the issue of whether a per-person accident limit applies to underinsured motorist claims. The court in that case concluded that when the underlying liability policy is fully dispersed on a per-accident basis, then the per-accident underinsured motorist limit applies. Based on the statute and precedent, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in the decedents’ estates favor, finding that the per-accident limit of $300,000 in the decedent’s insurance policy applied, minus an offset for benefits paid through the at-fault driver’s policy. The court rejected the insurer’s assertion that this provided a windfall to the decedents’ estates, noting that neither estate received in excess of the policy limits.

If you were injured in a motorcycle accident or tragically lost a loved one as a result of another driver’s carelessness, the motor vehicle accident lawyers at Maurer Law are prepared to assist you with all aspects of the legal process. We will ensure that you receive the maximum amount of compensation you deserve while providing you with responsive and diligent legal counsel. To schedule your free consultation call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

Related Posts

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Award of Compensation for Medical Treatment Despite Insurer’s Initial Denial of Coverage for the Consultations

North Carolina Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Premises Liability Claim Against Department of Transportation Involving Uncovered Manhole

At the time of the accident, the motorcyclist was insured under an automobile policy with Progressive and another one with USAA General. He sued both insurers, seeking uninsured motorist coverage. The claims were denied. Progressive claimed that uninsured motorist coverage wasn’t triggered because there was no physical contact between the plaintiff and the uninsured vehicle or the dump truck and the plaintiff. The insurer claimed that the object that hit the plaintiff had to be part of the equipment on the hit and run vehicle in order for uninsured motorist coverage to be triggered.

The plaintiff sued Progressive and USAA General, asserting numerous claims, including breach of contract and bad faith. He submitted an eyewitness’ affidavit, stating that she saw the debris from the dump truck make direct contact with the plaintiff and his motorcycle, which would other wise not have crashed. She also stated that it appeared there was nothing the plaintiff could have done to avoid the accident.

Progressive moved to dismiss the case under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). It claimed both case law and policy language required physical contact between the vehicles. The defendant allowed the motion to dismiss on this basis. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the statute should be construed to give him uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court explained that the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act provided protection to policy holders who are legally permitted to recover damages for bodily injuries from the irresponsible owners of uninsured motor vehicles.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3)(b) provides that if an insured claims he suffered a bodily injury due to a collision between motor vehicles, he can sue the insurer directly. The plaintiff argued that collision was synonymous with crash, which was defined elsewhere in the law as an event resulting in an injury due to a vehicle or its load, so the court should construe the “collision between motor vehicles” language to include the debris hitting his motorcycle.

The appellate court explained that the phrase described a specific type of collision, and it wasn’t that any type of collision was required but only a collision between motor vehicles. When interpreting a statute, a change in how something is phrased changes the presumption that there is a change in meaning. The appellate court explained that case law also supported the conclusion that the statute required a collision of vehicles. In an earlier case when an object fell from an unidentified vehicle and hit the plaintiff, this wasn’t enough to trigger uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court.

If you were hurt or a loved one was killed in a truck accident, the experienced attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

The accident arose when an insured motorcyclist (King) drove his Harley-Davidson motorcycle with a passenger (Turner). A driver (Skipper) with three passengers lost control of her car and hit the motorcycle, killing the motorcyclist and passenger. When the accident happened, the insurance company insured the car through an automobile liability insurance policy with limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. The insurer distributed the $60,000 among the three passengers in the car as well as the estates of the decedents, King and Turner. This exhausted coverage.

The insurance company also insured King through a motorcycle insurance policy that included underinsured motorist coverage with maximum limits for bodily injury of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Under the policy, the insurer paid the King and Turner estates $82,072 in underinsured motorist benefits. Each estate got $100,000 for the Skipper and King policies, based on the per person limit.

At a summary judgment hearing on the insurer’s lawsuit to get a declaration about coverage, the insurer admitted that King and Turner died because of the crash. It argued that the maximum liability limit should be capped at $100,000, the per person limit. Meanwhile, the estates of the decedents argued that the $300,000 per accident limit should apply. The trial court denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, and the insurer appealed.

The insurer argued that the language of the motorcycle insurance policy limited the estates to a recovery of $100,000 per person. The appellate court disagreed. It explained that under the Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act of 1953 (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(4)), the limit of underinsured motorist coverage is the difference between what is paid based on the exhausted liability policy and the limit of underinsured motorist coverage applicable.

When a liability policy is exhausted on a per-accident basis in connection with a particular accident, the per-accident underinsured motorist limit applies. The applicable limit depends on the number of claimants asking for coverage under the underinsured motorist policy and whether the negligent driver’s policy was exhausted based on a per-accident or per-person cap. If there is only one underinsured motorist claimant, the per-person limit applies. When there is more than one claimant asking for underinsured motorist coverage, the way the negligent driver’s liability policy was exhausted sets the applicable underinsured motorist limit.

The claimants argued that since the insurance company paid $60,000 under the negligent automobile driver’s policy, $240,000 was still available to be distributed. The insurance company argued that to apply the per-accident limit was to provide a windfall for the estates.

The appellate court explained that distributing the per-accident limit of $240,000 between the estates would not result in their getting an amount beyond what was bargained for in the policy. The final amount paid would still not be more than $300,000. Since the insurer had already paid $164,144 to the estates, it was only liable for a remaining $75,856 under the per-accident limit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

If you were injured or a loved one was killed by an underinsured driver, the experienced motorcycle accident attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Our principal, an AV-rated trial attorney, is a former insurance insurance claims adjustor and now puts his insights about the insurance industry to work for accident victims. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

In Pope v. Bridge Broom, Inc., a North Carolina appellate court considered a wrongful death case involving a motorcycle accident. The decedent had been riding a motorcycle with her husband in Charlotte. The defendant was street sweeping, using four vehicles driving southbound. The defendant’s employee drove a pickup truck at the tail end of the street sweeper, which was supposed to absorb a rear-end impact. There was a warning sign on the truck. The truck was completely in the left land of travel.

The decedent and her husband were riding in clear weather. The driver of a van came up to the street sweeping operation and came to a total stop behind the pickup. He signaled and moved to the center lane. Another driver hit the brakes to let him move over. The husband of the decedent came up in the left lane on his motorcycle, and the husband believed he had to move over to avoid the defendant’s truck, which was just finishing up its street sweeping. When he moved, he braked, but the motorcycle slid for 195 feet and fell over. The decedent was thrown from the motorcycle and died.

The husband sued the defendant, offering expert testimony that the street sweeping company had violated the standards set forth in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices by failing to position himself in the truck on the shoulder. The expert claimed that the company’s failure to follow these standards was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s wife’s death. No accident reconstruction expert’s testimony was offered.

The defendant’s expert testified that, based on measurements and calculations of the location, the reason for the death was the husband’s inadequate braking. The plaintiff moved for a directed verdict and asked for a jury instruction on negligence per se, which was denied. The court did allow an instruction about intervening negligence. The jury found that the company’s negligence was not the legal cause of the woman’s death. The plaintiff moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied.

The plaintiff argued that the trial court shouldn’t have denied his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence that the defendant’s negligence was a legal cause of the decedent’s death was undisputed. The appellate court explained that in an earlier case on point, the North Carolina Supreme Court had upheld the entry of directed verdict for a defendant because the evidence showed intervening negligence by a plaintiff motorcyclist. The court concluded that there was no error in the lower court’s admission of the defendant’s expert’s testimony about the measurements and calculations that led him to conclude the plaintiff’s husband had caused the accident.

It ruled that the plaintiff hadn’t shown this testimony was unreliable, and therefore it was properly admitted. The plaintiff also argued that the trial court had erred in giving the jury an instruction on intervening or superseding negligence because the defendant hadn’t shown enough evidence of intervening or superseding negligence on his part.

The court explained that in this case, the jury may have believed the defendant’s expert’s opinion that the husband’s failure to use the front brake was a negligent intervening act. This relieved the defendant of liability. Therefore, there was no error in instructing the jury about intervening negligence. For these and other reasons, the lower court’s ruling was affirmed.

If you were hurt in a motorcycle accident, Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Scheffer v. Dalton is a North Carolina wrongful death case. The plaintiff in the case was the administrator of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer’s estate, who sued the defendant, claiming the defendant’s negligence caused the wrongful death of Jeremy Talbot Scheffer. The defendant answered that Scheffer’s own negligence contributed to the accident, barring recovery. The plaintiff’s reply claimed that the other driver had the last clear chance to keep from hurting the man who was killed.

Scheffer drove a moped and worked at a bike shop. One day in 2010, he left the bike shop on his moped. The original headlight on the moped had broken, and the decedent had installed a bicycle light in its place. He often charged the light’s batteries at his place of employment, but there was no evidence as to whether he did this that day.

While Scheffer was on his moped that day, a woman was driving south and saw a weak light. The light passed her car, but she didn’t see anything when she turned to look. A mile out from where she saw the light was where the moped driver was killed. A man located at an intersection along the highway saw a car coming and waited. He didn’t see the moped or a light.

However, he did see a streak go by, which he thought was a motorcycle. He turned once it went by. The defendant was driving south and waited for a vehicle to pass before turning. He then turned, and Scheffer’s moped hit the defendant’s car; the defendant never saw the moped.

At trial, an accident reconstruction expert testified that the defendant was going extremely slowly for a few seconds before turning left on green. The light was fixed on the decedent’s moped, but it was pointing somewhat to the left, rather than straight ahead, and it wasn’t supposed to be used on a moped. There was no evidence of whether the light was working at the time of the accident. An officer who investigated determined there effectively was no functioning headlamp, and the decedent was driving up to 32 mph at the time of the accident.

When the defendant finished presenting evidence, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on contributory negligence, but the motion was denied. The jury considered whether the defendant had been negligent in various ways, such as by failing to yield the right of way or failing to keep a reasonable lookout. However, the court determined the defendant didn’t have the last clear chance to avoid the plaintiff, since he never saw him at all.

The jury found that the defendant’s negligence legally caused the decedent’s death, but the decedent was contributorily negligent. The plaintiff appealed, arguing among other things that the court should have allowed him to submit the issue of last clear chance to the jury and shouldn’t have submitted the issue of contributory negligence.

The appellate court explained the trial court had to submit the issue of contributory negligence to the jury if the defendant showed more than a scintilla of evidence to prove the decedent was driving with insufficient lighting. However, it found that the trial court did make a mistake in failing to submit the issue of last clear chance to the jury. This issue should be submitted to the jury if there is contributory negligence, but the plaintiff is able to show:  (1) the plaintiff had put himself in danger from which he couldn’t escape by using reasonable care, (2) the driver knew of this danger and inability to escape, (3) the driver could have avoided injuring the plaintiff by using reasonable care after he should have realized the danger to the plaintiff, and (4) the driver failed to use the time and means to avoid hurting the plaintiff.

The appellate court explained that the decedent’s dangerous situation wasn’t just because of insufficient lighting but because the defendant started to make a left turn into oncoming traffic, arguably without maintaining a proper lookout. The appellate court ruled that the trial court should allow the jury to determine this issue.

If a loved one was killed in a motorcycle accident, Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

In 2011, one of the company’s drivers called the husband and wife and asked for the gate to be opened so that he could pick people up at their hotels and drive them to the offices of a business with which the company had a contract. The following morning, the husband drove over to open the gate for the driver. However, as he turned left, he hit the plaintiff, who was riding his motorcycle the opposite way. The plaintiff was seriously injured, and the husband was cited for failure to yield.

The plaintiff sued the husband, the charter bus company, and another company owned by the couple. He claimed that the husband’s negligent driving injured him and that the charter bus company should be vicariously liable for his injuries. He also argued that the corporate veil between the charter bus company and the other company owned by the couple should be pierced. The husband’s attorney denied fault in his answer, but at deposition, the husband admitted liability.

The charter bus company’s insurer sued in federal court for a declaratory judgment that its policy didn’t cover the plaintiff’s claims. The case was stayed while the federal action continued. In 2014, the plaintiff asked for partial summary judgment, arguing there was no factual issue related to the issues of negligence, respondeat superior, and piercing the corporate veil. He claimed the only issue was damages.

The charter bus company also filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the husband wasn’t acting in the course and scope of his employment with the bus company when he came to open the gate. The trial court granted the husband’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court explained that the liability of a principal for an agent’s negligence can happen:  (1) if the agent’s act is expressly authorized, (2) the principal ratifies the agent’s act, or (3) the agent’s act is committed within the scope of employment to further the principal’s business. The third option is based on respondeat superior.

The plaintiff argued a jury could find for him based on respondeat superior because there was evidence he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The appellate court explained an employee isn’t in the employer’s business if he is driving to and from the workplace, except when he’s performing a duty owed to the employer when driving.

However, the defendant likened the case to an earlier one in which a superintendent responsible for turning on store lights during holidays hit a pedestrian. The court in that case found the employee’s sole duty was to turn on the lights, and this duty couldn’t be performed before arriving at the store. Therefore, respondeat superior didn’t apply. In this case, the accident happened before the husband unlocked the gate. The company didn’t control how he traveled there, nor did it have an interest in the car driven. There was no evidence the husband was on call. The lower court’s judgment was affirmed.

If you were hurt in a motorcycle accident by somebody acting in the course and scope of his employment, Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.