Setting the Standard

Attorneys

David L. Brown

Partner (Member)

David Brown concentrates his practice in the areas of insurance coverage, appellate practice, personal injury litigation, and construction litigation. He has extensive experience and expertise litigating complex insurance coverage disputes and bad faith claims throughout North Carolina as well as other southeastern states. He has also represented clients before the North Carolina appellate courts and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, including advocating questions of first impression before those courts. David is also a frequent writer and speaker before legal and industry groups concerning insurance matters. He is a certified mediator and maintains an active mediation practice, particularly in insurance coverage and construction defect related claims.

Practice Areas:

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Certified Mediator)
Appellate Practice
Construction Litigation
Insurance Coverage
Insurance Defense
Personal Injury
Products Liability
Property Coverage Disputes / Special Investigations
Wrongful Death

Bar Admissions:

North Carolina
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina

Education:

University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, NC, 1992 – J.D.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, 1988 – B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)

Sample Reported Cases:

Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Buzz Off Insect Shield LLC, 364 N.C. 1, 692 S.E.2d 605 (2010)
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Robin Hood Container Express, Inc., No. 5:08CV531, 2010 WL 2382585 (E.D.N.C. June 14, 2010)
Dorman v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:09CV268, 2010 WL 1462557 (W.D.N.C. April 13, 2010)
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., Inc. v. Armwood, 361 N.C. 576, 653 S.E.2d 392 (2007)
Rogers v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 193 Fed. Appx. 263 (4th Cir. 2006)
Jack H. Winslow Farms, Inc. v. Dedmon, 171 N.C. App. 754, 615 S.E.2d 41 (2005)
Home Savings Bank, SSB of Eden v. Colonial American Casualty & Surety Co., 165 N.C. App. 189, 598 S.E.2d 265 (2004)
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 159 N.C. App. 135, 582 S.E.2d 632 (2003)

Membership in Law-Related Organizations:

Greensboro Bar Association
North Carolina Bar Association
North Carolina State Bar
North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys (NCADA)
Defense Research Institute (DRI)

Miscellaneous:

AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell
Best Lawyers in America® – Insurance Law
North Carolina Super Lawyer® – Insurance Law
North Carolina Super Lawyer® Corporate Counsel Edition - Insurance Coverage
Business North Carolina’s “Legal Elite” – Litigation

Legal Decisions of Interest

Plaintiff’s appointment as administratrix of a decedent’s estate the day after her complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had run related back to the filing of the summons and therefore her wrongful death claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Tallman v. City of Gastonia, No. COA08-1021 (N.C. App. Sept. 15, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Punitive damages upheld when Court believed there was sufficient evidence that defendant’s restaurant manager’s conduct was willful and wanton based upon his conduct toward plaintiff at the restaurant. Everhart v. O’Charley’s Inc., No. COA08-1454 (N.C. App. Oct. 6, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Plaintiff (representative of deceased employee) failed in her burden of forecasting evidence that a parent company affirmatively undertook to provide a safe working environment at the parent company’s subsidiary plant, beyond concern or minimal contact about safety matters, and the parent company did not assume primary responsibility for industrial safety at the subsidiary’s plant. Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc., No. COA09-247 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Plaintiff allowed to pursue claim to have “corporate veil” pierced of defendant company so that the obligation on a note by individual owning 99% of the stock of the defendant company could be satisfied from assets of defendant company, even though the company did not participate in the making of the note giving rise to the owner’s obligation. Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Catawba Development Corp., No. COA08-1407 (N.C. App. Nov. 3, 2009). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Homeowners Association did not owe to a minor who was struck while riding his bike by a vehicular driver a legal duty to maintain the foliage in the common area of the housing subdivision. Fairbanks v. Brewington, No. COA09-237 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she tripped over an end table at a hospital, and she presented no evidence that her attention was diverted as she was walking. Snow v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, No. COA09-189 (N.C. App. Jan. 19, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Where the Complaint was not frivolous based upon the facts and the law, but because Plaintiff had a history of filing frivolous pleadings in general and against Defendant in particular, the trial court could conclude that Plaintiff filed the Complaint for an improper purpose. Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, No. COA08-1508 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
Where the plaintiff mother alleged that the city was negligent by failing to comply with safety statutes and city ordinances regulating the maintenance of city streets, obstructions to vision and traffic, and parking regulations, and she did not seek to recover damages for the death of her child based on a law enforcement agency's failure to exercise its general duty to protect the public, she was not barred by the public duty doctrine. Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.
The improvement-to-real-property statute of repose does not apply to a claim against a city for failing to maintain its streets because a city has the duty to exercise a continuing supervision over its streets in order that it may know their condition and it is held to have knowledge of a defect which such inspection would have disclosed to it. Beckles-Palomares v. Logan, No. COA09-567 (N.C. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Office Location

Phone:: 336.282.8848
Fax:: 336.282.8409

3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410