The N.C. Supreme Court held that a liability insurance company had no duty to defend its insured in a trademark infringement action where the claims asserted were not covered by the CGL policy because the claims that the insured misrepresented the efficacy of its own products in its advertisements were barred by the "failure to conform" exclusion in the CGL policy.  The Court also ruled that a duty to defend should not attach based on a "possibility of coverage," but rather, a liability insurer owes a duty to defend its insured only if a covered claim is actually alleged against the insured.  Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Buzz Off Insect Shield LLC, No. 272A08 (N.C. April 15, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Unfair and deceptive dealings among business partners are not deemed as having occurred "in commerce" and hence they do not give rise to a claim between such partners under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  White v. Thompson, No. 226A09 (N.C. April 15, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed because the appellant failed to serve parties in the case who did not appeal.  Lee v. Winget Road, LLC, No. COA09-828 (N.C. App. May 18, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

The defense of alteration or misuse of a product in a product liability action is not available when the person or company who altered or misused the product is not a named party to the lawsuit at the time of trial.  Stark v. Ford Motor Co., No. COA09-286 (N.C. App. May 18, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

Where a county's liability insurance policy excluded coverage of any claim that would be barred by governmental immunity, that county has not waived the governmental immunity defense even though it had purchased the liability insurance policy.  Estate of Early v. Haywood County Dept. of Social Services, No. COA09-1558 (N.C. App. June 1, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

An employer is not liable for an injury caused by an off-duty employee even though the negligent act of the employee and the resulting injury occurred on the employer's premises.  Matthews v. Food Lion, LLC, No. COA10-73 (N.C. App. July 6, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.

The appellate court reiterated the established principle that a plaintiff who brings a personal injury action alleging that he sustained and will continue to suffer physical and mental/emotional pain has impliedly waived his physician-patient privilege.  Lowd v. Reynolds, No. COA09-505 (N.C. App. July 6, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.  See also Midkiff v. Compton, No. COA09-254 (N.C. App. May 18, 2010) for the same principle.  Click here for a copy of that case opinion.

The trial court properly ordered that one of two contested wills be deemed the valid and enforceable one without a trial as a sanction for one of the party's failure to comply with a court order to respond to written discovery that had been entered earlier as a result of a motion to compel.  The appellate court reasoned that the party's refusal to respond to discovery prevented the other party to investigate and develop the issues that would have normally been tried.  In re Estate of Johnson, No. COA09-993 (N.C. App. July 20, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion. 

A claim involving an alleged invalid warrant was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where the Complaint set for merely the conclusory allegation that the warrant was insufficient, and there were no allegations explaining how the facts in the warrant were false.  The appellate court held that because of the conclusory allegation, the lower court did not need to assume the truth of the allegation.  McDowell v. Randolph County, No. COA09-1113 (N.C. App July 20, 2010).  Click here for a copy of the case opinion.