Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company
Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Company
Opinion of the Court
The issues in this case are virtually identical to those in Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 289, 378 S.E. 2d 21 (1989), and Parrish v. Grain Dealers Mutual Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 323, 378 S.E. 2d 419 (1989). Factually, this case differs only in that a settlement was reached without a lawsuit after a failed attempt to procure the consent of the underinsured motorist coverage carrier to the settlement. These differences are not material to our disposition of this appeal.
For the reasons fully and aptly stated in Silvers and Parrish, we hold that plaintiffs entry into a settlement with the tortfeasor
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. However, the case must be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court to determine whether defendant was prejudiced by plaintiffs failure to procure its consent to the settlement.
Modified and affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 289, 378 S.E. 2d 21 (1989).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DAVID E. BRANCH, Administrator of the Estate of Cheryl Lynn Branch v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY and UNIGARD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published