IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-697 Filed: 4 September 2018 Mecklenburg County, No. 16-CVS-19007 MARIO SEGURO-SUAREZ, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, EDWARD G. CONNETTE, Plaintiff, v. KEY RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, JOSEPH J. ABRIOLA, SHARON SOSEBEE, SUZANNE MCAULIFFE, CHERYL GLESS, ROBERT E. HILL AND CAROLINA INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendants. Appeal by Defendants Key Risk Insurance Company, Joseph J. Abriola, Sharon Sosebee, Suzanne McAuliffe, and Cheryl Gless from Order entered 30 January 2017 by Judge Jesse B. Caldwell, III, in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 February 2018. Edwards Kirby L.L.P., by David F. Kirby and William B. Bystrynski, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP, by Mel J. Garofalo, C. Rob Wilson, Linda Stephens, and M. Duane Jones, for Defendant-Appellants Key Risk Insurance Company, Joseph J. Abriola, Sharon Sosebee, Suzanne McAuliffe, and Cheryl Gless. INMAN, Judge. When a North Carolina worker is hurt on the job, his injury is within the exclusive scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act and he can obtain relief only by pursuing a claim before the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the SEGURO-SUAREZ V. KEY RISK INS. CO. Opinion of the Court “Commission”). But when, after the Commission awards the injured worker benefits, an employer’s insurance company knowingly provides false information to police to frame him for insurance fraud, resulting in his arrest, incarceration, and indictment on felony charges, the worker’s claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and unfair and deceptive trade practices (“UDTP”) exceed the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act and are properly before the General Court of Justice. Plaintiff Mario Seguro-Suarez (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendants Key Risk Insurance Company (“Key Risk”), Joseph J. Abriola, Sharon Sosebee, Suzanne McAuliffe, and Cheryl Gless (collectively the “Individual Defendants” together with Key Risk as “Defendants”)1 for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, UDTP, bad faith, willful and wanton conduct, conspiracy, and punitive damages. Defendants appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), but that it did err in failing to dismiss Plaintiff’s bad faith and civil conspiracy claims under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore affirm the trial court’s order in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1 The other defendants named in the action, Robert E. Hill and Carolina Investigative Services, Inc., did not appeal. We therefore limit our use of “Defendants” in this opinion to Key Risk and the Individual Defendants. -2- SEGURO-SUAREZ V. KEY RISK INS. CO. Opinion of the Court I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The record below, consisting primarily of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, indicates the following: In 2003, Plaintiff was working for his employer, Southern Fiber, when he fell from a height of approximately 18 feet onto concrete, striking his head. As ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals