NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Litigation

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist insurance coverage provides coverage for individuals who are involved in motor vehicle accidents where the responsible (at fault) party either has no insurance or whose insurance coverage is insufficient to fully compensate the injured person.  Because this type of coverage is available under the injured person’s own policy of automobile insurance, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists claims stand at the intersection of insurance coverage and motor vehicle accident litigation. Our attorneys’ extensive experience litigating complex insurance coverage questions allow us to apply this knowledge to lawsuits arising from a motor vehicle accident where the responsible party is either uninsured or underinsured.  We have represented injured persons who pursue underinsured and uninsured motorist insurance, and we have defended individuals and companies as a result of such insurance.

We are sensitive to the relationship between the insurer and their insured that often comes into conflict in these claims, and we will work with you toward resolving these claims while striving to maintain relationships beyond the context of the present litigation.  Whether arbitrating the claim before an arbitration panel, presenting the case to a jury, and/or litigating insurance coverage questions arising from the claim, the Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown firm provides you with experienced representation in this practice area.

Attorneys Who Usually Handle Matters in the Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Litigation Practice Area:

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
NC Personal Injury Lawyers