# Carter v. Stanly County

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · July 16, 1996 · 123 N.C. App. 235

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893711

## Case

- **Full name:** JOE CARTER, REBECCA W. CARTER and CRYSTAL VENTURES CORPORATION, A North Carolina corporation v. STANLY COUNTY, a County in the State of North Carolina, WILLIAM DWIGHT SMITH, Chairman of the Stanly County Commissioners DONNIE JOE WHITLEY, PAUL EDWARD BOWERS, SR., THOMAS EDWARD UNDERWOOD, MELVIN K. HUNEYCUTT, County Commissioners THE STANLY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, JERRY L. BURLESON, J. MICHAEL HATLEY, DR. PAUL B. HOUNSHELL, JR., EDWIN (PETE) R. JOHNSON, DONNA T. BAUCOM, DR. SAMUEL G. GRIFFIN, DR. LOUIS C. KANDL, DR. SAMUEL E. THOMPSON, EDWARD (RUSTY) R. KERR, O. DAVID WILLIAMS, JR., DONNIE JOE WHITLEY, Members of the Stanly County Board of Health DR. JOSEPH BARRY [SIC] BASS, JR., BENJAMIN WASHINGTON and MICHAEL GOFORTH
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 16, 1996
- **Citations:** 123 N.C. App. 235; 472 S.E.2d 378; 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 680
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Walker
- **Judges:** Greene, John, Martin, Walker
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893711

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that local health departments, their directors, and registered sanitarians act as State agents “[w]ith regard to sewage treatment and disposal and the issuance of improvement permits”

## Opinion text

Judge Walker
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion on the basis of this Court’s recent decision in Meyer v. Walls, 122 N.C. App. 507 , 471 S.E.2d 422 (1996) which held that where a government entity waives the defense of sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance in an amount equal to or in excess of the coverage provided by the Tort Claims Act, jurisdiction rests with the superior court. Here, plaintiffs allege that the defendants waived immunity by purchasing liability insurance.
I would remand this cause to the superior court to make findings of fact as to whether the insurance policy or policies in question have liability limits equal to or greater than the coverage provided by the Tort Claims Act. Further, the court should make findings regarding whether the policy provides coverage for any or all of the plaintiffs’ claims. If the policy provides coverage which is equal to or greater than the amount provided by the Tort Claims Act, jurisdiction properly rests in the Superior Court. If not, jurisdiction is in the Industrial Commission and the superior court should dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8893711. Public record. Not legal advice.