Wood v. Nunnery

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA13-713 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 February 2014 TERRY WAYNE WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Forsyth County No. 09 CVS 3520 JEREMY NUNNERY, NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and FIREMEN S INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, D.C., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal by Defendant Jeremy Nunnery from order entered 11 February 2013 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr. in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 November 2013. Maynard & Harris, Attorneys at Law, PLLC, by C. Douglas Maynard, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee. Van Laningham Duncan PLLC, by L. Cooper Harrell; Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by James G. Exum, Jr.; and Bennett & Guthrie, PLLC, by Rodney A. Guthrie and Roberta King Latham, for Defendant-Appellant Jeremy Nunnery. Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, by Deborah J. Bowers, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae. & Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC, by Jon R. Moore; and White Stradley, PLLC, by J. David Stradley, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae. McGEE, Judge. -2- Terry Wayne Wood ( Plaintiff ) was injured on 10 May 2006, in an automobile accident in Harnett County, as a result of the negligence of Jeremy Nunnery ( Defendant ). At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was driving a truck owned by Plaintiff s employer, in the course of his employment. Plaintiff filed a complaint on 30 April 2009 against Defendants North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company ( Farm Bureau ), and Firemen's Insurance Company of Washington, D.C. ( Firemen's ). Farm Bureau was dismissed from the action and is not a party to this appeal. Firemen's is the underinsured motorist carrier for Plaintiff's employer. Defendant was insured at the time of the accident by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ( State Farm ). At trial, the jury determined that Defendant s negligence caused Plaintiff s injuries, and awarded Plaintiff $300,000.00 in compensatory damages on 11 August 2010. The trial court entered judgment on 31 August 2010, directing that Plaintiff recover from Defendant damages in the amount of $300,000.00, along with interest at the statutory rate of eight percent (8%) from 30 April 2009. State Farm paid its policy limit of $30,000.00 into the office of the Clerk of Court of Forsyth County on 2 September 2010. Firemen's paid $202,627.58 into the -3office of the Clerk of Court of Forsyth County on 13 September 2010, in fulfilment motorist carrier. he had than received of agreement, workers' compensation The workers to obligations as the underinsured Plaintiff introduced evidence at trial that $148,000.00. employer s its amount of compensation $50,000.00, benefits the lien carrier leaving a net totaling of was more Plaintiff s reduced, benefit in by workers compensation benefits of $98,000.00. Defendant filed a motion for credit upon and satisfaction of the judgment on 1 December 2010. order on 29 December 2010, $30,000.00 by State Farm, $98,000.00 by Plaintiff s The trial court entered an ruling that $202,627.58 employer s the by payments Firemen's, workers of and compensation carrier, a total amount of $330,627.58, constituted payment in full of Plaintiff the judgment appealed, and and that this the Court judgment entered an was satisfied. opinion on 7 August 2012 affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part. Wood v. Nunnery, __ N.C. App. __, 730 S.E.2d 222 (2012) (Wood I). In Wood I, and relevant to the current appeal, this Court stated: The trial court held that the $30,000.00 from State Farm, $202,627.58 from Firemen's, and the net benefit of $98,000.00 in workers' compensation benefits ($148,000.00 less the reduced lien of $50,000.00) constituted a recovery to . . . [P]laintiff -4of at least $330,627.58. The trial court went on to hold that the collective payments paid into the Office of the Clerk of Court of Forsyth County constitute full payment and satisfaction of the final Judgment entered herein. Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 224. This Court went on to say: We initially note that the trial court conflated the concepts of the amounts owed by [D]efendant as the tortfeasor in this matter and the amount owed by Firemen's as an underinsured motorist carrier (UIM). Plaintiff instituted this action against [D]efendant, seeking monetary damages for personal injuries proximately caused by the negligence of [D]efendant. The jury found that [P]laintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of [D]efendant and awarded damages to [P]laintiff of $300,000.00. The trial court entered judgment against only [D]efendant. This judgment was based upon [D]efendant's negligence and was a tort recovery. The liability of Firemen's contract, not in tort. Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 224. is based in This Court held that Defendant was not entitled to a credit against the judgment for payments made by Firemen's as a UIM carrier. 225. We Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at further held: The only payment to which [D]efendant is entitled to a credit against the judgment is the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm, [D]efendant's liability insurance carrier. Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 226. However, instructed: in remanding to the trial court, this Court -5The trial court erred in declaring that the judgment against [D]efendant had been paid and satisfied in full. The portion of the trial court's order so declaring is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. At such a hearing, the trial court may consider whether [D]efendant is entitled to additional credits against the judgment, other than the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm. Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 226. Upon remand, the trial court, by order entered 11 February 2013, ruled that Defendant was only entitled to a credit for the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm, his liability carrier, and that Defendant was not entitled to any credit for monies paid by either Firemen s or by the workers compensation carrier. Defendant appeals the 11 February 2013 order. In Defendant s first argument, he contends the trial court erred in refusing to reduce the judgment against [him] to account for the UIM payment [made by Firemen s] and net workers compensation benefits that were compensation for his injuries. received by [Plaintiff] as We disagree. In the prior appeal in this case, this Court held: We hold that [D]efendant is not entitled to a credit for payments made by Firemen's into the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court for Forsyth County. We have no Wood I, __ N.C. App. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 225. authority to revisit that holding. Weston v. -6Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 415, 417, 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994) (citations omitted) ( According to the doctrine of the law of the case, once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law of the case and governs the question both in subsequent proceedings in a trial court and on subsequent appeal. ). Less clear is the holding in Wood I concerning the workers compensation payments made to Plaintiff. However, the Wood I opinion considered the credit given Defendant by the trial court for the net workers compensation payout in stating: The trial court held that . . . the net benefit of $98,000.00 in workers compensation $50,000.00) benefits ($148,000.00 constituted a recovery less to the . . . Wood I, __ N.C. App. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 224. reduced lien of [P]laintiff[.] The trial court then credited that amount (along with payments made by Firemen s and State Farm) against Defendant s recovery. This Court held that the trial court had erred, stating: We initially note that the trial court conflated the concepts of the amounts owed by defendant as the tortfeasor in this matter and the amount owed by Firemen s as an underinsured motorist carrier (UIM). Plaintiff instituted this action against [D]efendant, seeking monetary damages for personal injuries proximately caused by the negligence of [D]efendant. The jury found that [P]laintiff s injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of [D]efendant and awarded damages to [P]laintiff of -7$300,000.00. The trial court entered judgment against only [D]efendant. This judgment was based upon [D]efendant s negligence and was a tort recovery. The liability of Firemen s contract, not in tort. Id. at __, 730 S.E.2d at 224. the workers compensation is based in Though this Court did not include carrier in that discussion, its liability, like that of Firemen s, was in contract, not tort. Plaintiff instituted this action in tort against Defendant, not the workers compensation carrier. In Wood I, this Court continued: The party against whom a judgment for the payment of money is rendered by any court of record may pay the whole, or any part thereof, in cash or by check, to the clerk of the court in which the same was rendered[.] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1 239 (2011). In this case, the judgment was entered only against [D]efendant. It was not entered against Firemen s. By the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1 239, [D]efendant is responsible for satisfying the judgment entered against him. The only payment to which [D]efendant is entitled to a credit against the judgment is the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm, [D]efendant s liability insurance carrier. Id. at __, compensation analysis, we 730 S.E.2d payment find no is at not 225-26. Though specifically distinguishing the mentioned difference workers in between this the -8relative positions of Firemen s and the workers compensation carrier in this matter. Within this context, we hold that our holding in Wood I: The only payment to which [D]efendant is entitled to a credit against the judgment is the $30,000.00 paid by State Farm, [D]efendant s liability insurance carrier[,] id., applied to all potential credits that had been argued on appeal, including the workers compensation payment. court, having additional denying found credits Defendant that not Defendant addressed credit for in was not Wood payments I, made The trial entitled to did err in Plaintiff by to not any Firemen s or by the workers compensation carrier. Defendant s policy arguments are not for us to decide, as we are bound by this Court s holding in Wood I. applies to Defendant s collateral source argument. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e). The same

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.