7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless Insurancegreen2 sentences2013In utilizing the comparison test, “the pleadings are read side-by-side with the policy to determine whether the events as alleged are covered or excluded.” Id. 2011We affirm the trial court’s orders in part and reverse in part. *275 Applying the comparison test set out in Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance Co., 315 N.C. 688 , 340 S.E.2d 374 (1986), we agree with plaintiffs that insurers MAG Mutual Insurance Company; American Economy Insurance Company and American States Insurance Company (collectively “American”); and Cincinnati Insurance Company all had a duty to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action. | 3 | 6 |
Duke University v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurancegreen2 sentences2020See Duke Univ., 96 N.C. 2013If the insurer’s refusal to defend the underlying action was unjustified, the insurer obligates itself “to pay the amount and costs of a reasonable settlement.” Duke University, 96 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Maine State Academy of Hair Design, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurancegreen2 sentences2010"Even a complaint which is legally insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss gives rise to a duty to defend if it shows an intent to state a claim within the insurance coverage." Maine State Academy, 699 A.2d at 1156 (internal citations omitted). 2010“Even a complaint which is legally insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss gives rise to a duty to defend if it shows an intent to state a claim within the insurance coverage.” Maine State Academy, 699 A.2d at 1156 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Farm Family Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Co., 673 A.2d 1350 , 1352 *744 (Me.1996) (describing the comparison test as whether "there is any potential basis for recovery . . . regardless of the actual facts on which the insured's ultimate liability may be based," and stating that "[a]n insured is not at the mercy of the notice pleading of the third party suing him to establish his own insurer's duty to defend."). 2010Co., 673 A.2d 1350, 1352 (Me. 1996) (describing the comparison test as whether “there is any potential basis for recovery . . . regardless of the actual facts on which the insured’s ultimate liability may be based,” and stating that “[a]n insured is not at the mercy of the notice pleading of the third party suing him to establish his own insurer’s duty to defend.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.