121 N.C. App. 662 - Wilson v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Hovet v. Allstate Insurance (2004), 123 N.C. App. 1 - Murray v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (1996)
2 district · 41 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 46 Cal. 3d 287 - Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies · 105 Wash. 2d 381 - Tank v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. · 103 Wis. 2d 56 - Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co. · 167 W. Va. 597 - Jenkins v. J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. · Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“North Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party based on unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(9) Unfair claim settlement practices. — No person shall commit or perform with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: (a) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (b) Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon' communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies; (c) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies; (d) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; (e) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed; (f) Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear; (g) Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought hy such insureds, when such insureds have made claims for amounts reasonably similar to the amounts ultimately recovered; (h) Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application; (i) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which w”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ms. Wilson is in fact a named insured .. .■ Ms. Wilson’s tort action stems from the alleged negligence of Mr. Wilson which in turn triggers coverage under [the insurer’s] liability coverage provisions for Mr. Wilson, rather than for Ms. Wilson. In short, Ms. Wilson’s relationship to [the insurer] in this case is as a third party because she seeks to recover from the insurer’s liability coverage provisions for her husband, rather than from a coverage provision provided for her own interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.