udtp claim in North Carolina

2019“North Carolina case law has held that conduct which constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud is sufficient to support a UDTP claim.” Compton v. Kirby, 157 N.C.

2019“North Carolina case law has held that conduct which constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud is sufficient to support a UDTP claim.” Compton v. Kirby, 157 N.C.

2017To state a valid UDTP claim, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, (2) in or effecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the AAF or his business.” Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C.

2016Ct. Oct. 15, 2015) (holding that “dismissal of [defendants’] trade secret and tortious interference claims extinguishes [plaintiff’s] UDTP claim on these grounds”); Combs, 147 N.C.

2022The first element of a UDTP claim requires proof that the business engaged in “an unfair or deceptive trade practice.” A practice is deceptive when “it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N. Carolina, Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 72 , 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007).

2022The first element of a UDTP claim requires proof that the business engaged in “an unfair or deceptive trade practice.” A practice is deceptive when “it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N. Carolina, Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 72 , 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007).

2025To state a UDTP claim, a plaintiff must allege that the “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001).

2025To state a UDTP claim, a plaintiff must allege that the “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001).

2022In this case, the operative portion of the Warranty states, “in the event of a dispute on this Warranty the laws of the State of North Carolina shall apply.” By its plain terms, this provision dictates that North Carolina law governs a warranty dispute; this provision does not dictate that North Carolina law governs all litigation between the parties. ¶ 15 As neither an intentional breach of contract nor a breach of warranty, standing alone, is sufficient to maintain a UDTP claim, Mitchell v. Linville, 148 N.C.

2022In this case, the operative portion of the Warranty states, “in the event of a dispute on this Warranty the laws of the State of North Carolina shall apply.” By its plain terms, this provision dictates that North Carolina law governs a warranty dispute; this provision does not dictate that North Carolina law governs all litigation between the parties. ¶ 15 As neither an intentional breach of contract nor a breach of warranty, standing alone, is sufficient to maintain a UDTP claim, Mitchell v. Linville, 148 N.C.

2019App. 329, 331 , 385 S.E.2d 537, 538 (1989), aff’d, 328 N.C. 267 , 400 S.E.2d 36 (1991) (holding that UDTP claim based on fraud accrues when the plaintiff “discovered or should have . . . discovered” the fraud).

2015Corp., 313 N.C. at 493 S.E.2d at 354 (holding UDTP claim based on breach of contract accrues when claimant “becomes aware or should reasonably have become aware of the existence of the injury”); Nash v. Motorola Comm’cns & Elecs., Inc., 96 N.C.

2016Supp. 23 (quoting Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 548 , 276 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1981)).) RMC counters that summary judgment would be inappropriate because Defendants’ conduct is comparable to that which this Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals found to constitute a UDTP violation in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment, LLC, No. 00-CVS-10358, 2003 NCBC LEXIS 6 , at *157 (N.C.

2016Supp. 23 (quoting Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 548 , 276 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1981)).) RMC counters that summary judgment would be inappropriate because Defendants’ conduct is comparable to that which this Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals found to constitute a UDTP violation in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment, LLC, No. 00-CVS-10358, 2003 NCBC LEXIS 6 , at *157 (N.C.

2026See Azure Dolphin, LLC v. Barton, 371 N.C. 579 , 602–03 (2018) (affirming dismissal of a UDTP claim where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ “conduct described herein and throughout this complaint, including its numerous instances of fraud, constructive fraud, and fraud by omission, has a tendency to deceive, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous” because the court had already dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud claims); Krawiec, 370 N.C. at 613 (“Plaintiffs made no further allegations of specific unfair or deceptive acts.

2026See Azure Dolphin, LLC v. Barton, 371 N.C. 579 , 602–03 (2018) (affirming dismissal of a UDTP claim where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ “conduct described herein and throughout this complaint, including its numerous instances of fraud, constructive fraud, and fraud by omission, has a tendency to deceive, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous” because the court had already dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud claims); Krawiec, 370 N.C. at 613 (“Plaintiffs made no further allegations of specific unfair or deceptive acts.

2025App. 33, 42 (2006) (noting that a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is insufficient to state a UDTP claim); Eastover Ridge, L.L.C. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 139 N.C.

2025App. 33, 42 (2006) (noting that a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is insufficient to state a UDTP claim); Eastover Ridge, L.L.C. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 139 N.C.

2015Id. {35} The UDTP claim rests on Plaintiff’s allegation that “Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duties, as described in the first and second claims for relief, constitute unfair and deceptive acts under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.” (Compl. ¶ 54.) The first two claims for relief, however, were only brought against the other shareholders and directors.

2015Id. {35} The UDTP claim rests on Plaintiff’s allegation that “Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duties, as described in the first and second claims for relief, constitute unfair and deceptive acts under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.” (Compl. ¶ 54.) The first two claims for relief, however, were only brought against the other shareholders and directors.

2019However, as with other causes of action, to have standing to bring a UDTP claim, “the plaintiff must prove the elements of standing, including ‘injury in fact.’” Carcano v. JBSS, LLC, 200 N.C.

2019However, as with other causes of action, to have standing to bring a UDTP claim, “the plaintiff must prove the elements of standing, including ‘injury in fact.’” Carcano v. JBSS, LLC, 200 N.C.

2013To prevail on a UDTP claim under Chapter 75 of our General Statutes, a “ ‘[p]laintiff must show: (1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.’ ” Kewaunee Scientific Corp. v. Pegram, 130 N.C.

2013To prevail on a UDTP claim under Chapter 75 of our General Statutes, a “ ‘[p]laintiff must show: (1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.’ ” Kewaunee Scientific Corp. v. Pegram, 130 N.C.

2026Marble Corp. v. Crawford, 84 N.C.

2026Marble Corp. v. Crawford, 84 N.C.

2026Id. at 251 (“[P]laintiffs’ UDTP claim was separate and distinct from plaintiffs’ claims on the underlying insurance policy [a contract], and the UDTP claim is therefore governed by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.”).

2026Id. at 251 (“[P]laintiffs’ UDTP claim was separate and distinct from plaintiffs’ claims on the underlying insurance policy [a contract], and the UDTP claim is therefore governed by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.”).

2022App. 53, 62 , 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992) (“[A] mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.”). ¶ 29 When a plaintiff alleges a UDTP violation based upon a breach of contract, the plaintiff “must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act[.]” Id. (internal marks and citation omitted).

2022App. 53, 62 , 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992) (“[A] mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.”). ¶ 29 When a plaintiff alleges a UDTP violation based upon a breach of contract, the plaintiff “must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act[.]” Id. (internal marks and citation omitted).

2021In White, the court rejected a UDTP claim against a partner of the plaintiffs where the allegedly unfair or deceptive acts concerned the defendant’s breach of the duty of loyalty to the partnership, holding that “this usurpation harmed [the partnership] and Plaintiffs, but had no impact in the broader marketplace.” Id. at 573. 85.

2021In White, the court rejected a UDTP claim against a partner of the plaintiffs where the allegedly unfair or deceptive acts concerned the defendant’s breach of the duty of loyalty to the partnership, holding that “this usurpation harmed [the partnership] and Plaintiffs, but had no impact in the broader marketplace.” Id. at 573. 85.

2020See, e.g., Poor, 138 N.C.

2020See, e.g., Poor, 138 N.C.

2020While Bumpers concerns a UDTP claim occurring outside of the context of the insurance industry and Section 58-63-15(1), it holds that “a claim under section 75-1.1 stemming from an alleged misrepresentation does indeed require a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on this misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.” Id. at 88-89 , 747 S.E.2d at 226-27 .

2020While Bumpers concerns a UDTP claim occurring outside of the context of the insurance industry and Section 58-63-15(1), it holds that “a claim under section 75-1.1 stemming from an alleged misrepresentation does indeed require a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on this misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.” Id. at 88-89 , 747 S.E.2d at 226-27 .

2008With respect to the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ substantive UDTP claim, we need not address Jones’ argument that the conversion verdict was sufficient to meet the requirements of that claim because it is well-settled that “a plaintiff who proves fraud thereby establishes that unfair or deceptive acts have occurred.” Bhatti, 328 N.C. at 243 , 400 S.E.2d at 442 .

2008With respect to the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ substantive UDTP claim, we need not address Jones’ argument that the conversion verdict was sufficient to meet the requirements of that claim because it is well-settled that “a plaintiff who proves fraud thereby establishes that unfair or deceptive acts have occurred.” Bhatti, 328 N.C. at 243 , 400 S.E.2d at 442 .

2017Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter is the leading case recognizing that a UDTP claim can arise from an employment relationship. 351 N.C. at 34 , 519 S.E.2d at 312 .

2017Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter is the leading case recognizing that a UDTP claim can arise from an employment relationship. 351 N.C. at 34 , 519 S.E.2d at 312 .

2017As such, the Court concludes that the conduct underlying Plaintiff’s UDTP claim constitutes an “extraordinary event” tied to the “change in ownership of the security itself.” HAJMM, 328 N.C. at 594 , 403 S.E.2d at 493 .

2017As such, the Court concludes that the conduct underlying Plaintiff’s UDTP claim constitutes an “extraordinary event” tied to the “change in ownership of the security itself.” HAJMM, 328 N.C. at 594 , 403 S.E.2d at 493 .