HUBER ENGINEERED WOODS, LLC v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 700 S.E.2d 220 (2010)
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Number: inncco20101008518
Visitors: 25
Filed: Oct. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2010
Summary: PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying action at issue. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating the portion of the trial court's order of summary judgment that found defendant has a duty to indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg Coun
Summary: PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying action at issue. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating the portion of the trial court's order of summary judgment that found defendant has a duty to indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg Count..
More
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant has a duty to defend plaintiff in the underlying action at issue. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating the portion of the trial court's order of summary judgment that found defendant has a duty to indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Source: Leagle
