See also BuildersMut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Const., Ltd., ___, N.C. ___, ___, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) (quoting Avis, supra; State Capital Ins.,supra). As a matter of clarification, the Court notes Defendant is incorrect in its theory that the event causing damage must be the "dominant and efficient cause of loss" for the loss to be excluded from coverage under an insurance policy.
We first address the proper standard of review on this issue. This Court reviews a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment de novo. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006). Issues of contract interpretation and an insurer's contractual duty to its insured are also reviewed de novo on appeal. Kessler v. Shimp, 181 N.C. App. 753, 756, 640 S.E.2d 822, 824 (2007).
" Id. It is only "when the pleadings allege facts indicating that the event in question is not covered, and the insurer has no knowledge that the facts are otherwise, [that] it is not bound to defend." Id.; see also Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Inc., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) ("An insurer's duty to defend a policy holder against a lawsuit is determined by the facts alleged in the pleadings."); Crandell v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 183 N.C. App. 437, 440, 344 S.E.2d 604, 606 (2007) (noting that the "mere possibility" that potential liability is covered suffices to impose duty to defend on insurer).
To explain this difference in scope, we continued, "An insurer's duty to defend is ordinarily measured by the facts as alleged in the pleadings; its duty to pay is measured by the facts ultimately determined at trial." Id.; seealso Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) ("An insurer's duty to defend a policy holder against a lawsuit is determined by the facts alleged in the pleadings." (citing Waste Mgmt., 315 N.C. at 691, 340 S.E.2d at 377)).
¶ 8 "Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and ‘any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd. , 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) ). Our Court reviews the trial court's order allowing summary judgment de novo.Id. at 88, 637 S.E.2d at 530.
¶ 10 "Summary judgment is appropriate when 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact' and 'any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)). We review the trial court's order allowing summary judgment de novo.
(1) ambiguous terms and standards of causation in exclusion provisions of homeowners policies must be strictly construed against the insurer, and (2) homeowners policies provide coverage for injuries so long as a non-excluded cause is either the sole or concurrent cause of the injury giving rise to liability . Stating the second principle in reverse, the sources of liability which are excluded from homeowners policy coverage must be the sole cause of the injury in order to exclude coverage under the policy.Id. at 546, 350 S.E.2d at 73 (emphasis added); see also Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd. , 361 N.C. 85, 88–89, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530-31 (2006). Therefore, we must determine whether, taken as true and construed in favor of coverage, Littlefield's allegations could allow a determination that Cox was negligent, and that Cox's negligence was a concurrent proximate cause of Littlefield's "severe emotional distress."Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics , 327 N.C. 283, 304, 395 S.E.2d 85, 97 (1990) (NIED is proven when "a plaintiff has established that he or she has suffered severe emotional distress as a proximate [and foreseeable] result of the defendant's negligence").
AnalysisWe review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo . Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd ., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006). Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Supplee v. Miller-Motte Bus. Coll., Inc ., 239 N.C. App. 208, 228, 768 S.E.2d 582, 597 (2015).
A. Standard of ReviewWe review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
We hold that it did not. We review an order of summary judgment de novo. Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006). “Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”