explaining that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to show an undertaking where the defendant had performed an inspection for'damage or potential damage to an electrical system four days prior to a fire that killed one child and injured another
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to show an undertaking where the defendant had performed an inspection for'damage or potential damage to an electrical system four days prior to a fire that killed one child and injured another
- noting that although unfair and deceptive practices tend to involve buyer-seller relationships, “courts have also recognized actions based on other types of commercial relationships, including those outside of contract”
- noting that UTPA claims usu- ally involve buyer-seller relationships but "courts have also recog- nized actions based on other types of commercial relationships, including those outside of contract."
- noting that a third party generally cannot directly sue the insurer of an opposing party unless that third party is an intended beneficiary of the insurance contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Greene
concurring.
Unfair or deceptive trade practices claim
A claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices “may not be asserted by a third-party claimant against the insurer of an adverse *272 party.” Wilson v. Wilson, 121 N.C. App. 662, 665 , 468 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1996); see also Lee v. Mutual Community Sav. Bank, 136 N.C. App. 808, 811 , 525 S.E.2d 854, 857 (2000). I, therefore, agree with the majority for this reason that plaintiff, a third-party, may not assert an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim against USF&G, the insurer of an adverse party. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim against USF&G for unfair or deceptive trade practices.
Failure to warn claim against landlords
In Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615 , 507 S.E.2d 882 (1998), the North Carolina Supreme Court “eliminated the distinctions between licensees and invitees, and established ‘a standard of reasonable care toward all lawful visitors.’ ” Lorinovich v. K Mart Corp., 134 N.C. App. 158, 161 , 516 S.E.2d 643, 646 (quoting Nelson, 349 N.C. at 631 , 507 S.E.2d at 892 ), cert. denied, 351 N.C. 107, -S.E.2d -(1999). Pursuant to Nelson , a landowner is “required to exercise reasonable care to provide for the safety of all lawful visitors on his property.” Id. A landowner, therefore, must “take reasonable precautions to ascertain the condition of the property and to either make it reasonably safe or give warnings as may be reasonably necessary to inform the [lawful visitor] of any foreseeable danger.” Id. at 161-62, 516 S.E.2d at 646 .
In this case, Joshua Hinson and Brittany Hinson, as tenants of the landlords, were lawful visitors on the landlords’ property. The landlords, therefore, had a duty to make the property reasonably safe or to warn the Hinsons of any forseeable dangers. Accordingly, I agree with the majority for this reason that the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s claim against the landlords for failure to warn.
I otherwise fully concur with the majority.