Parnell v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Webb (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)
- In re the Estate of Anderson (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Sterling v. Gil Soucy Trucking, Ltd. (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
- Hansen v. Crystal Ford-Mercury, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Scott (N.C. Ct. App. 1996)
- Carawan v. Tate (N.C. Ct. App. 1981)
- Booker v. Everhart (N.C. 1978)
- Jones v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2023)
- In re Menendez (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
- Ls Mtron v. Escorts, Ltd. (North Carolina Business Court 2012)
- Woolard v. Davenport (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)
- Daniel v. Wray (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
- Land v. TALL HOUSE BUILDING CO. (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Whittaker v. Furniture Factory Outlet Shops & Auto-Owners Insurance (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
- Kane Plaza Associates v. Chadwick (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)
- Goodrich v. Rice (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)
- Carolina First National Bank v. Douglas Gallery of Homes, Ltd. (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Carawan v. Tate (N.C. 1982)
- Reliance Insurance v. Walker (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)
- Howard v. Boyce (N.C. 1966)
- Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (N.C. 1965)
- Hart v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff’s motion to strike is addressed to defendant’s further answer and defense in its entirety and in substance, if not in form, is a demurrer. The court, in allowing plaintiff’s motion to strike, in effect sustained a demurrer to defendant’s further answer and defense. Jewell v. Price, 259 N.C. 345, 348, 130 S.E. 2d 668, and cases cited.
In considering plaintiff’s motion to strike (demurrer), the facts alleged by defendant are deemed admitted. Jenkins & Co. v. Lewis, 259 N.C. 86, 88, 130 S.E. 2d 49; Pack v. McCoy, 251 N.C. 590, 112 S.E. 2d 118; Trust Co. v. Currin, 244 N.C. 102, 92 S.E. 2d 658.
“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest . . .” G.S. 1-57; Morton v. Thornton, 257 N.C. 259, 262, 125 S.E. 2d 464, and cases cited. An agent is not the real party in interest and cannot maintain an action. Morton v. Thornton, 259 N.C. 697, 700, 131 S.E. 2d 378.
“A real party in interest is a party who is benefited or injured by the judgment in the case. An interest which warrants making a person *449 a party is not an interest in the action involved merely, but some interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” Rental Co. v. Justice, 211 N.C. 54, 188 S.E. 609.
As pertinent to whether plaintiff is a real party in interest, reference is made to Herring v. Jackson, 255 N.C. 537, 543, 122 S.E. 2d 366, and cases cited.
The facts alleged by defendant disclose that Safeco Insurance Company, in discharge of its obligations under the liability policy it issued to plaintiff, paid in full the judgment Phillips obtained against plaintiff; that this action is being prosecuted in the name of plaintiff by Safeco and solely for its benefit; and that plaintiff has made no payment or otherwise suffered loss for which he has a claim against defendant. If the facts are as alleged by defendant, plaintiff is not the real party in interest in respect of an existing cause of action, if any, against defendant on account of matters alleged in the complaint.
Whether Safeco has a cause of action against defendant is not presented by this appeal.
The order, which in effect sustains plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s further answer and defense, is reversed.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.