N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 116
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-311 (2026)

Institutions of higher education; tuition liability limitation

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Oct. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 116 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to G.S. 116-312, an institution of higher education shall have immunity from claims by an individual, if all of the following apply:

(1) The claim arises out of or is in connection with tuition or fees paid to the institution of higher education for the spring academic semester of 2020.

(2) The claim alleges losses or damages arising from an act or omission by the institution of higher education during or in response to COVID-19, the COVID-19 emergency declaration, or the COVID-19 essential business executive order.

(3) The alleged act or omission by the institution of higher education was reasonably related to protecting the public health, safety, or welfare in response to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, COVID-19 essential business executive order, or applicable guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(4) The institution of higher education offered remote learning options for enrolled students during the spring academic semester of 2020 that allowed students to complete the semester coursework.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to losses or damages that resulted solely from a breach of an express contractual provision allocating liability in the event of a pandemic event.

(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to losses or damages caused by an act or omission of the institution of higher education that was in bad faith or malicious. (2020-70, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2022–2023 · leading case: Dieckhaus v. Bd. of Governors of The Univ. of N.C., No. 21-797 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dieckhaus v. Bd. of Governors of The Univ. of N.C., No. 21-797 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023). · cites it 72× “Plaintiffs argued the statute was unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including “the federal contracts clause.”
Lannan v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., 879 S.E.2d 290 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). “is normally accomplished through the mechanism of offer and acceptance,” thereby rolling the last element into the first two, and for “a contract implied in fact, one looks not to some express agreement, but to the actions of the parties showing an implied offer and acceptance.”…”
Lannan v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., 879 S.E.2d 290 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). “is normally accomplished through the mechanism of offer and acceptance,” thereby rolling the last element into the first two, and for “a contract implied in fact, one looks not to some express agreement, but to the actions of the parties showing an implied offer and acceptance.”…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-311(a): 1 case
Dieckhaus v. Bd. of Governors of The Univ. of N.C., No. 21-797 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023). “Plaintiffs argued the statute was unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including “the federal contracts clause.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-311(a)(4): 1 case
Dieckhaus v. Bd. of Governors of The Univ. of N.C., No. 21-797 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2023). “Plaintiffs argued the statute was unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including “the federal contracts clause.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.