NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Disclaimer

This website and its contents have been prepared by Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, for informational purposes only and it is not intended to be a solicitation. We are not providing legal advice with this website or by providing links to other websites, and the information found on this website is not intended to, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, receipt of any information on this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation, and you should seek the advice of legal counsel before acting or relying upon any information appearing on this website or on any website that you access from our website via a hyperlink. Our e-mail is provided as a convenience in communicating with our attorneys, and any contact via e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please remember that e-mail is not secure, and messages sent to the firm or any of our attorneys or employees should not contain sensitive or confidential information.

Some pages on our website provide links to other resources, websites, and information on the Internet. Such sites are not created or supported by Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, they are neither affiliated with nor legally associated with our firm, and we do not vouch for the accuracy of the information provided by such resources and on such websites. Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC expressly disclaims any liability for the content, accuracy, or any other aspect of the information contained on such resources and websites.

Legal Decisions of Interest

  • A recent opinion out of the Texas Supreme Court has recently been the subject of a lot of commentary around the insurance coverage and construction world. The case is Ewing Construction Co. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., and it came before the Texas Supreme Court on certification of questions from the Fifth Circuit (Ewing Constr. Co. […]In cases involving construction defect claims (and potentially other types of claims), the insurance policy that is implicated is a very important issue.  The issue of whose policy and/or which policy is “on the risk” for a particular claim is most often referred to as “trigger of coverage”.  Some states’ laws allow all policies in […]
  • In connection with a discovery dispute between the parties, the Court of Appeals held that a blanket general objection asserted by the defendants based on “the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine” was inadequate to effect the intended purpose of the objection. The Court noted that even though […]In a lawsuit involving a mobile home park tenant assaulted by another tenant, the Court of Appeals stated that although North Carolina law has recognized a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable third-party criminal acts, such a duty did not include a duty to evict a tenant, and although other […]
  • In a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the parents of a deceased child alleging that defendant doctors were negligent in failing to discover lacerations to the child’s liver at the hospital following a car accident, the Court of Appeals agreed that the parents’ expert witness’ testimony was not improperly speculative, even though the expert used […]The North Carolina Supreme Court “adopted” the reasoning of the dissenting Court of Appeals judge and hence held that the age of a lawful visitor injured on property naturally occurring (a creek), in and of itself, did not impose a higher standard of care on the property owner, because such a heightened level of care […]
  • In a product liability action involving a self-propelled wheelchair that caught fire, resulting in the house to catch on fire and burning Plaintiff’s decedent, the Court of Appeals held that the defense of “insulating negligence” (by which a defendant is insulated from liability by an independent act of another) does not apply where it is […]The Court of Appeals, asserting that it was following established law, declined to allow damages for the loss of a pet dog based upon a strong emotional bond the owners had with the dog, and instead damages were generally limited to the cost of “replacing” the dog, since the Court viewed the dog as merely […]
  • Although Plaintiff filed the Complaint without it being signed and ordinarily that would result in the action being deemed not to have been properly instituted, Plaintiff’s prompt remedial measures of filing an amended, signed Complaint corrected the deficiency, and the amended Complaint related back to the commencement of the action for purposes of timeliness. Estate […]

Read More  >>>>    

Office Location

Phone:
336.282.8848
Fax:
336.282.8409
3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410
NC Personal Injury Lawyers