Primerica v. James Massengill Sons

38 Citing cases

  1. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Crayton

    1:17-cv-593 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    28. "[O]nly the owner of a life insurance policy may change the beneficiary." Adams v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 558 S.E.2d 504, 508 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002); accord Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) ("[A]ny changes made to an insurance policy affecting the beneficiary designation . . . must be made by the policy owner. If not, the changes are a legal nullity and of no force and effect . . . .").

  2. Cascade Capital, LLC v. DRS Processing LLC

    3:17-cv-00470-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In order to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must establish: "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Lake Toxaway Cmty. Ass'n v. RYF Enters., LLC, 742 S.E.2d 555, 561 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. App. Ct. 2011); JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Browning, 750 S.E.2d 555, 559 (N.C. App. Ct. 2013). Within the realm of unjust enrichment, Plaintiff also brings an action for money had and received.

  3. Olivares v. Univ. of Chi.

    213 F. Supp. 3d 757 (M.D.N.C. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    A claim of unjust enrichment under North Carolina law requires a plaintiff to establish that "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co. , 211 N.C.App. 252, 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). Similar to the claim of unjust enrichment under Texas law, a claim of unjust enrichment under North Carolina law can also be established by a single act of copyright infringement.

  4. Walker v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs. LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-607-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Jun. 16, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Recommending dismissal of claim for lack of standing to foreclose on basis of Rooker-Feldman

    "Under a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish certain essential elements, (1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011); see also Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., 2015 WL 2412467, at *15 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2015); Preservation Professional Services, LLC v. M2 Pictures, LLC, 2015 WL 3659506, at *6 (W.D.N.C. May 5, 2015); Mountain Land Properties, Inc. v. Lovell, 46 F.Supp.3d 609, 629 (W.D.N.C. 2014); Scherer v. Steel Creek Property Owners Ass'n, 2014 WL 2196065, at *18 (W.D.N.C. May 27, 2014); Lawhead v. PNC Bank, 2014 WL 1266995, at *7 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2014). Additionally, "whether [Defendant] was entitled to receive the benefit...is the determinative issue" in an unjust enrichment case.

  5. Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.

    16 F. Supp. 3d 605 (M.D.N.C. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    Finding that tribal entities that made loans to plaintiff over the internet were not required parties under Rule 19 where plaintiff's claims under RICO and usury laws challenging the validity of the loan agreements were "analogous to tort law" and did not allege breach of contract

    “The test is not whether the defendant acquired the money honestly and in good faith, but rather, has he the right to retain it.”Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 259, 712 S.E.2d 670, 676 (2011) (quoting Allgood v. Wilmington Sav. & Trust Co., 242 N.C. 506, 512, 88 S.E.2d 825, 829 (1955) ).Ridley v. Jim Walter Corp., 272 N.C. 673, 677, 158 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1968).

  6. River's Edge Pharms., LLC v. Gorbec Pharm. Servs., Inc.

    1:10CV991 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2012)   Cited 12 times
    Finding a potential breach of fiduciary duties where an agent allegedly "made statements asserting ownership over certain intellectual property claimed by" its principal

    Under North Carolina law, the party claiming unjust enrichment must sufficiently allege that (1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the other party, (2) that party consciously accepted the benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). "A claim of unjust enrichment is an alternative to a claim based on breach of contract whereby, upon the absence of an actual agreement between the parties, the court implies that a 'quasi-contract' existed and permits a plaintiff to bring an action in restitution to recover the amount of the benefit conferred on the defendant."

  7. Beaufort Builders, Inc. v. White Plains Church Ministries, Inc.

    246 N.C. App. 27 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the economic loss rule prohibited plaintiff's claim and explaining, "It is well settled that no negligence claim exists where all rights and remedies have been set forth in a contractual relationship."

    "However, when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the prevailing party, and when the question has become one exclusively of law such that the jury has no function to serve, a motion for JNOV may be properly granted." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 266–67, 712 S.E.2d 670, 681 (2011) (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). It is well settled that "no negligence claim exists where all rights and remedies have been set forth in [a] contractual relationship."

  8. Pippens v. May

    738 S.E.2d 830 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)

    ]’ N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A–1, Rule 50(b)(1) [ (2012) ]. A motion for [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] provides the trial court with an opportunity to reconsider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence after the jury has returned a verdict and permits the court to enter judgment ‘in accordance with the movant's earlier motion for a directed verdict and notwithstanding the contrary verdict actually returned by the jury.’ “ Primerica Life v. James Massengill & Sons, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 712 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2011) (quoting Ace, Inc. v. Maynard, 108 N.C.App. 241, 245, 423 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), disc. review denied,333 N.C. 574, 429 S.E.2d 567 (1993)). The propriety of granting [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is determined by the same considerations as that of the movant's prior motion for directed verdict—whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant, is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a verdict for the non-moving party.

  9. Halscott Megaro, P.A. v. McCollum

    66 F.4th 151 (4th Cir. 2023)   Cited 63 times
    Taking judicial notice of a “publicly available” “administrative decision from a body acting in a judicial capacity”

    To establish unjust enrichment, a party must show "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Const. Co., 211 N.C.App. 252, 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (2011) (citing Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 184 N.C.App. 688, 647 S.E.2d 111, 116 (2007)). And quantum meruit "is a measure of recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered in order to prevent unjust enrichment."

  10. Maisha v. Univ. of N.C.

    641 F. App'x 246 (4th Cir. 2016)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that a "gap of nearly one year does not provide the temporal proximity needed to establish causation"

    "An action for money had and received may be maintained as a general rule whenever the defendant has money in his hands which belongs to the plaintiff, and which in equity and good conscience he ought to pay to the plaintiff." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 676 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). To prove a claim of unjust enrichment, UNC was required to establish "(1) a measurable benefit was conferred on [Maisha], (2) [Maisha] consciously accepted that benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously."