Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pennington, 356 N.C. 571

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that an insured's claim for underinsured motorist benefits was not barred merely because the insurer was not notified within the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying tort action. The court further held that whether the insureds acted in good faith and whether the insurer suffered material prejudice from delayed notice presented genuine issues of material fact, precluding summary judgment. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court's summary judgment for Liberty Mutual.

Holdings

1. N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) does not require an insured to notify the UIM carrier of a claim within the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying tort action; failure to provide notice within that period, without more, does not bar recovery of UIM benefits.
2. The three-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(2) does not apply to bar the Penningtons' UIM claim.
3. The policy-notice issue could not be resolved on summary judgment because genuine issues remained regarding whether the Penningtons acted in good faith and whether Liberty Mutual suffered material prejudice in investigating and defending the UIM claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) required notice of a UIM claim within the statute of limitations applicable to the underlying tort action.
2. Whether the three-year limitations period for liabilities created by statute under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(2) barred the Penningtons' UIM claim.
3. Whether the Penningtons' failure to comply promptly with the policy's notice provisions barred recovery of UIM benefits as a matter of law on summary judgment.
4. Whether Liberty Mutual established material prejudice from the delayed notice sufficient to avoid UIM liability.

Disposition

affirmed