Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Michael G. Lallier, RLC

10 Citing cases

  1. Bailey v. Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London

    701 F. Supp. 3d 296 (E.D.N.C. 2023)

    Rather, "when an insurer denies a claim because of a legitimate, 'honest disagreement' as to the validity of the claim, the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot establish bad faith or any tortious conduct on the part of the insurer." Topsail Reef Homeowners Ass'n v. Zurich Specialties London, Ltd., 11 F. App'x 225, 239 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); see Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 736 (E.D.N.C. 2018). Bad faith does not include an "honest disagreement or innocent mistake."

  2. Ballard v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

    714 F. Supp. 3d 630 (E.D.N.C. 2024)

    "[W]hen an insurer denies a claim because of a legitimate, 'honest disagreement' as to the validity of the claim, the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot establish bad faith or any tortious conduct on the part of the insurer." Topsail Reef Homeowners Ass'n v. Zurich Specialties London, Ltd., 11 F. App'x 225, 239 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); see Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 736 (E.D.N.C. 2018). Bad faith does not encompass an "honest disagreement or innocent mistake."

  3. First Protective Ins. Co. v. Rike

    516 F. Supp. 3d 513 (E.D.N.C. 2021)   Cited 18 times

    Rather, "when an insurer denies a claim because of a legitimate, ‘honest disagreement’ as to the validity of the claim, the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot establish bad faith or any tortious conduct on the part of the insurer." Topsail Reef Homeowners Ass'n v. Zurich Specialties London, Ltd., 11 F. App'x 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); see Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 736 (E.D.N.C. 2018). Bad faith does not encompass an "honest disagreement or innocent mistake."

  4. Shinaberry v. Town of Murfreesboro

    No. 2:17-CV-7-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Under North Carolina law, "the elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) a prior proceeding [] initiated by defendant to achieve an ulterior motive or purpose; and (2) once that proceeding was initiated, some willful act not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding was committed." Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 734 (E.D.N.C. 2018) (emphasis omitted); see Franklin v. Yancey Cty., No. 1:09cv199, 2010 WL 317804, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2010) (unpublished); Semones v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 106 N.C. App. 334, 341, 416 S.E.2d 909, 913 (1992). A plaintiff satisfies the second requirement "when the plaintiff alleges that the prior action was initiated by the defendant or used by him to achieve a purpose not within the intended scope of the process used."

  5. Self v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC

    No. 2:19-CV-3-D (E.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining the disagreement between courts and assuming without deciding that RESPA creates a private right of action for violations of § 1024.35

    Under North Carolina law, "the elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) a prior proceeding[] initiated by defendant to achieve an ulterior motive or purpose; and (2) once that proceeding was initiated, some willful act not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceed was committed." Universal Underwriters, Inc. Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 734 (E.D.N.C. 2018); see Franklin v. Yancey Cty., No. 1:09cv199, 2010 WL 317804, at *5 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2010) (unpublished); Semones v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 106 N.C. App. 334, 341, 416 S.E.2d 909, 913 (1992). A plaintiff satisfies the ulterior motive requirement "when the plaintiff alleges that the prior action was initiated by the defendant or used by him to achieve a purpose not within the intended scope of the process used."

  6. Michael Borovsky Goldsmith LLC v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co.

    359 F. Supp. 3d 306 (E.D.N.C. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    Rather, "when an insurer denies a claim because of a legitimate, ‘honest disagreement’ as to the validity of the claim, the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot establish bad faith or any tortious conduct on the part of the insurer." Topsail Reef Homeowners Ass'n v. Zurich Specialties London, Ltd., 11 F. App'x 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished); see Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F.Supp.3d 723, 736 (E.D.N.C. 2018). Bad faith does not encompass an "honest disagreement or innocent mistake."

  7. LaBudde v. The Phx. Ins. Co.

    7:21-CV-197-FL (E.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    See, e.g., Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F.Supp.3d 723, 737 (E.D. N.C. 2018) (collecting cases).

  8. Manoula, LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co.

    1:21-cv-00718 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Simply parroting the language 16 of subsection (d) is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F.Supp.3d 723, 738 (E.D. N.C. 2018). “Rather, a plaintiff must identify specific failures or how those alleged failures damaged them.

  9. Neshat v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    No. 5:20-CV-664-D (E.D.N.C. May. 27, 2021)   Cited 6 times

    A mere disputed claim is not sufficient. See Elliott, 883 F.3d at 398; Sides v. Athene Annuity & Life Co., No. 3:19CV703-GCM, 2020 WL 2114380, at *4 (W.D.N.C. May 4, 2020) (unpublished); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d723, 738 (E.D.N.C. 2018); Clear Creek Landing, 2012 WL 6641901, at *4 ("The fact that [the insured] may disagree with the assessment of [the insurer] . . . does not transform a run of the mill insurance dispute into a tort cognizable under Section 75-1.1."); cf. Blis Day Spa, 427 F. Supp. 2d at 635-36; Cent. Carolina Bank & Tr. Co. v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 247 F. Supp. 2d 791, 801-02 (M.D.N.C. 2003) ("[A]dvocating a position that is ultimately determined to be incorrect does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of good faith in attempting to settle a claim."). A similar standard of reasonably clear liability applies to claims under subsection (h).

  10. Sides v. Athene Annuity & Life Co.

    3:19CV703-GCM (W.D.N.C. May. 1, 2020)

    While Plaintiffs may disagree with Defendant's assessment, this does not transform their dispute into a UDTPA claim. See Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lallier, 334 F. Supp. 3d 723, 738 (E.D.N.C. 2018) (dismissing UDTPA claim where insured failed to plausibly allege that the insurer's liability was reasonably clear); Clear Creek Landing Home Owners' Ass'n v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 2012 WL 6641901, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2012) (dismissing UDTPA claim for failing to allege that liability was reasonably clear; "the fact that Plaintiff may disagree with the assessment of Defendant ... does not transform a run of the mill insurance dispute into a tort cognizable under [the UDTPA]"). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state a claim for violation of the UDTPA.