# Williams v. Holsclaw

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · January 6, 1998 · 128 N.C. App. 205

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588767

## Case

- **Full name:** MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS and KATHERINE WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs v. RONALD FLOYD HOLSCLAW and CITY OF RALEIGH, Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** January 6, 1998
- **Citations:** 128 N.C. App. 205; 495 S.E.2d 166; 1998 N.C. App. LEXIS 19
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Greene
- **Judges:** Mark D. Martin
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9588767

## Opinion text

Judge Greene
concurring.
I agree with the majority that Integon is required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff in this case. To hold otherwise would circumvent the intent of section 20-279.21(b)(3) to provide insurance coverage to insured parties who are injured and damaged by persons not having liability insurance. See N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(3) (1993). Furthermore, to allow the uninsured carrier to assert the municipality’s sovereign immunity would circumvent the intent of the legislature that vehicles owned by municipalities can be uninsured vehicles within the meaning of section 20-279.21(b)(3). The lack of insurance by the municipality qualifies the vehicle as an uninsured vehicle within the meaning of section 20-279.21(b)(3). It would be absurd to believe that the legislature intended that this same lack of insurance would simultaneously disqualify the vehicle from uninsured insurance coverage within the meaning of section 20- *214 279.21(b)(3). See Comr. of Insurance v. Automobile Rate Office, 294 N.C. 60, 68 , 241 S.E.2d 324, 329 (1978) (courts must construe statutes so as to avoid absurd results). For these additional reasons I join with the majority in reversing the trial court’s grant of Integon’s motion to dismiss.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588767. Public record. Not legal advice.