IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA15-539

Filed: 19 January 2016

Wake County, No. 05 CVS 11195

GREENSHIELDS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA and THE ST. 

PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., Defendants.

Appeal by plaintiff from Order entered 3 February 2015 by Judge Howard E. 

Manning, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 

October 2015.

BRENT ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, by Brenton D. Adams, for plaintiff.

ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, by Jonathan A. Berkelhammer and Lenor Marquis 

Segal, for defendants.

ELMORE, Judge.

Greenshields, Inc. (plaintiff) appeals from the trial court’s order entered 3 

February 2015 denying its motions to amend and granting Travelers Property 

Casualty Company of America and The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.’s

(defendants) motion to dismiss. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I. Background

On 17 August 2004, a fire occurred in the building housing plaintiff’s 

restaurant. At that time, plaintiff was insured under a policy issued by St. Paul 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Travelers Companies, Inc., which is alleged to be the predecessor to Travelers 

Property Casualty Company of America. Plaintiff submitted a claim to defendants 

under the insurance policy, and between October 2004 and March 2005 defendants 

paid plaintiff a total of $210,492.13 against the loss claim. Because the parties could 

not agree on the total amount of the loss, they invoked the appraisal clause of the 

insurance policy. Per the appraisal clause, each party selected an appraiser, and the 

appraisers appointed retired Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer to serve as an 

umpire for the dispute. The appraisal hearings were conducted in July, October, and 

November 2005. Plaintiff also filed a complaint on 16 August 2005 in Wake County 

Superior Court seeking to recover damages under the policy and for “a declaratory 

judgment from this Court stating that it is entitled to have and recover the full 

amount of its damages claim[.]”

On 30 November 2005, the umpire entered an award of $854,000 in favor of 

plaintiff. Defendants believed they were entitled to deduct from the appraisal award 

the $210,492.13 that they previously paid, and they refused to pay the full $854,000. 

On 14 March 2007, the parties filed a stipulation in superior court agreeing that the 

issues involved in the lawsuit filed 16 August 2005 have been referred to appraisal 

and until the appraisal process is complete, “there is no way to make a determination 

as to whether there are any issues to be heard in the Superior Court Division of Wake 

County[.]” Subsequently, on 15 June 2007 the umpire issued a “Statement of 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

Clarification,” and on 18 September 2007, he issued a “Corrected Award,” clarifying 

that any previous payments were not to be applied as a credit to reduce the appraisal 

award. Defendants still refused to pay the full $854,000. 

On 11 December 2007, the superior court entered an “Order of Dismissal,” 

ordering “that this case be removed from the trial docket of active cases and placed 

as a closed file without prejudice to previous orders herein, and without prejudice to 

the entry of motions and orders in the future.” The following day, defendants filed 

an answer and counterclaim to plaintiff’s complaint, alleging eight affirmative 

defenses.

In January 2009, plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for relief pursuant to

Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On 13 February 2012, plaintiff filed an adversary 

proceeding in bankruptcy court, and on 16 April 2012, defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred 

by the statute of limitations. The bankruptcy court entered an order on 23 July 2012 

granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice “to allow the plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend his complaint to include the underlying facts regarding the 

alleged tolling agreement.”

On 25 September 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint in Wake 

County Superior Court, apparently pursuant to the bankruptcy court’s order. On 23 

December 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice in superior court
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 41(b). Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended 

motion to amend its complaint in superior court on 3 January 2015. The superior 

court entered an order on 3 February 2015 denying plaintiff’s motions to amend its 

complaint and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff 

appeals. 

II. Analysis

A. Findings of Fact

Plaintiff asserts that the trial court made findings of fact that were not 

supported by the evidence, namely portions of paragraphs fifteen, seventeen, 

eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one. Plaintiff argues that they should be 

stricken and judgment should be reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits. 

Defendants contend that the remaining unchallenged findings of fact independently 

support dismissal, and plaintiff does not present any evidence to the contrary. 

Instead, plaintiff “broadly and baldly” states that six of the numerous detailed 

findings of fact are not supported by evidence.

Where the superior court sits without a jury, the standard of review on appeal 

is “whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact 

and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts. Findings of fact 

by the trial court . . . are conclusive on appeal if there is evidence to support those 

findings.” Medina v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 165 N.C. App. 502, 505, 598 S.E.2d 707, 709 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

(2004) (citing Shear v. Stevens Bldg. Co., 107 N.C. App. 154, 160, 418 S.E.2d 841, 845 

(1992)). “Unchallenged findings of fact are presumed correct and are binding on 

appeal.” In re Schiphof, 192 N.C. App. 696, 700, 666 S.E.2d 497, 500 (2008) (citations 

omitted). 

Plaintiff claims the following portions of the trial court’s findings of fact are 

not supported by the evidence:

Paragraph fifteen: Plaintiff took no action to have its 

motion to amend heard in this court.

Paragraph seventeen: The allegations contained in 

plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint were previously 

litigated between the same parties in bankruptcy court. 

Paragraph eighteen: There was an expectation on the part 

of the parties that a resolution would occur in a reasonably 

short period. 

Paragraph nineteen: Plaintiff has engaged in undue and 

unreasonable delay with respect to this matter.

Paragraph twenty: Plaintiff’s delay in this court appears 

deliberate and tactical.

Paragraph twenty-one: Defendants have been prejudiced 

by the plaintiff’s deliberate, tactical, undue and 

unreasonable delay.

Regarding paragraph fifteen, plaintiff states, “This finding of fact is not 

supported by any evidence before the court.” However, the trial court found that on 

17 November 2014, defendants requested that plaintiff’s motion be placed on the 5 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

January 2015 civil motions calendar. Plaintiff does not challenge this finding, and it 

is presumed correct and binding on appeal. Moreover, the trial court’s order indicates 

that it dismissed the claims not due to plaintiff’s failure to take action to have its 

motion to amend heard, but because “[t]his case has languished in this Court since 

2007 with no activity occurring.”

Plaintiff argues that paragraph seventeen is not supported by the evidence 

because the order from the bankruptcy court “states on its face that there was no 

prejudice to the plaintiff’s [sic] filing an amended complaint and litigating the case 

on its merits.” Plaintiff admits it did not file an amended complaint in bankruptcy 

court. Instead, plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint in state court over 

one year after the bankruptcy court’s order. “ ‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a 

final judgment on the merits in a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction 

precludes a second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those 

in privity with them.’ ” Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C. App. 305, 307, 528 S.E.2d 51, 53

(quoting Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 491, 428 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1993)), aff’d, 

352 N.C. 666, 535 S.E.2d 356 (2000). “[I]t is well settled in this State that ‘[a] 

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the 

court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice.’ ” Hill v. West, 189 N.C. App. 

194, 198, 657 S.E.2d 698, 700 (2008) (quoting Clancy v. Onslow Cty., 151 N.C. App. 

269, 272, 564 S.E.2d 920, 923 (2002)). Here, although the trial court continued in 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

paragraph seventeen to find that plaintiff’s claims cannot be relitigated, the 

bankruptcy court dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. Accordingly, there 

was no final judgment on the merits. Even though the findings of fact in paragraph 

seventeen do not support the trial court’s conclusion of law regarding res judicata, 

the trial court’s alternative conclusion of law—that plaintiff engaged in undue and 

unreasonable delay—supports its judgment.

Regarding paragraph eighteen, plaintiff asserts, “There is absolutely no basis 

or no evidence before the court which would support this conclusion.” However, the 

trial court found, “The tolling agreement asserted by Plaintiff was of limited duration, 

namely, ‘during th[e] period when we are attempting to resolve the issues,’ in light of 

the expectation that a resolution would occur in a reasonably short period, not for the 

five or six year period of hibernation which occurred in this case.” The evidence 

supports this finding. Moreover, the trial court further stated, “The Court’s findings 

with respect to the tolling agreement do not alter its decision on the motions to amend 

and the motion to dismiss in that even considering the potential existence of a tolling 

agreement, the Court would nevertheless deny Plaintiff’s Motion[s] . . . and grant 

Defendants’ Motion.” Thus, the challenged finding had no impact on the court’s 

conclusions of law or judgment. 

Plaintiff submits the following argument pertaining to paragraph nineteen: 

“[P]laintiff respectfully contends that there is no evidence before the court to support 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

this finding of fact.” The trial court further provided in paragraph nineteen:

The incident underlying this litigation occurred August 17, 

2004, and an appraisal award was entered November 30, 

2005. Despite rejection by Defendants of a portion of the 

appraisal award shortly after it was entered, Plaintiff did 

not seek confirmation of the award in this Court. Further, 

this action was administratively closed December 11, 2007, 

and there are no facts indicating that Plaintiff engaged in 

any activity with respect to this matter from the time of 

this Court’s administrative closing of the file in December 

11, 2007, until February 13, 2012, the time the adversary 

proceeding was filed in bankruptcy court. Nor are there 

any facts in the record providing a justification for such 

delay. Plaintiff’s delay continued after the dismissal in 

bankruptcy court where Plaintiff never refiled in that court 

but waited over one year from that court’s dismissal to 

move to amend in this Court. Plaintiff’s delay continued 

by failing to calendar its motion to amend.

Plaintiff does not challenge these findings, which overwhelmingly support the trial 

court’s conclusion that plaintiff engaged in undue and unreasonable delay. 

Regarding paragraph twenty, “plaintiff contends that there is no evidence 

before the court which would justify this finding of fact.” To the contrary, the record 

supports the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s delay was tactical. Plaintiff filed suit 

in state court, waited over six years to file suit in federal court, and then tried to 

amend its federal claim in state court. Plaintiff does not challenge the remaining 

findings in paragraph twenty, which support the court’s order.

Lastly, with respect to paragraph twenty-one, plaintiff states, “There is no 

basis in the evidence for any finding that the defendants were prejudiced in any way. 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

The fact that the defendants have retained counsel ‘with respect to this matter’ is no 

support for a finding that the defendants have been prejudiced.” The trial court

further found in paragraph twenty-one, 

Defendants’ counsel filed written motions and briefs in 

bankruptcy court. Defendants’ counsel also attended the 

hearing in bankruptcy court. In addition, counsel for 

Defendants had to attend this Court’s administrative 

session on October 17, 2014; thereafter calendared 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend; filed their own motion to 

dismiss; and then briefed and argued the motions to amend 

and motions to dismiss. Further, after almost ten years, 

Plaintiff is now seeking to change the character of the 

claims by seeking treble damages, punitive damages, and 

attorneys’ fees.

Again, plaintiff fails to challenge these findings of fact, which support the trial court’s 

order. 

In sum, there was competent evidence to support the challenged findings of 

fact, with the exception of paragraph seventeen. The remaining “[u]nchallenged 

findings of fact are presumed correct and are binding on appeal.” In re Schiphof, 192 

N.C. App. at 700, 666 S.E.2d at 500. The trial court’s conclusions of law were proper 

in light of such facts and support its judgment. 

B. Motions to Amend Complaint 

Plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s 

motions to amend “without any justifying reason,” and “defendant has shown no 

prejudice from any delay.” Plaintiff argues that there was no undue delay and “the 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

proposed amendments were more in the order of supplemental proceedings involving 

facts which occurred after the Trial Court removed the case from the active trial 

docket.”

“A ruling on a motion to amend a pleading following the time allowed for 

amending pleadings as a matter of course is left to the sound discretion of the trial 

court.” Wall v. Fry, 162 N.C. App. 73, 80, 590 S.E.2d 283, 287 (2004) (citing Isenhour 

v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 345 N.C. 151, 154, 478 S.E.2d 197, 199 (1996)). 

“Undue delay is a proper reason for denying a motion to amend a pleading.” Id. “A 

judge is subject to reversal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing by a litigant 

that the challenged actions are manifestly unsupported by reason.” Clark v. Clark, 

301 N.C. 123, 129, 271 S.E.2d 58, 63 (1980) (citing Martin v. Martin, 263 N.C. 86, 138 

S.E. 2d 801 (1964)).

Rule 15(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states,

(a) Amendments.—A party may amend his pleading once 

as a matter of course at any time before a responsive 

pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no 

responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not 

been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at 

any time within 30 days after it is served. Otherwise a 

party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by 

written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be 

freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead 

in response to an amended pleading within 30 days after 

service of the amended pleading, unless the court 

otherwise orders.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(a) (2013).
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

Here, the trial court listed numerous reasons to support its decision to deny 

plaintiff’s motions to amend. The trial court found that plaintiff filed the current 

action on 16 August 2005 and did not file its motion to amend until 20 September 

2013, over eight years later. It found that plaintiff “has engaged in undue and 

unreasonable delay with respect to this matter.” As previously discussed, the 

abundant findings in paragraph nineteen support the trial court’s decision. The trial 

court concluded as a matter of law the following: 

Whether to grant or deny a motion to amend is in the 

discretion of the trial court. Plaintiffs’ [sic] Motion to 

Amend and Amended Motion to Amend should be denied 

on the grounds that they are futile, the claims were 

litigated in the adversary proceeding and are barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata. Alternatively, Plaintiffs’ [sic] 

Motion to Amend and Amended Motion to Amend should 

be denied on the grounds that Plaintiff has engaged in 

undue and unreasonable delay. . . .

Evidenced by the findings listed throughout this opinion, the challenged action 

is not “manifestly unsupported by reason.” Clark, 301 N.C. at 129, 271 S.E.2d at 63. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motions

to amend its complaint based on the court’s conclusion that plaintiff engaged in undue 

and unreasonable delay. See Wall, 162 N.C. App. at 80, 590 S.E.2d at 287 (“Undue 

delay is a proper reason for denying a motion to amend a pleading.”).

C. Rule 41(b)

Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its case for failure 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

to prosecute because “there is no evidence upon which a court could conclude that the 

plaintiff either manifested an intent to thwart the progress of the action or to engage 

in any delaying tactic.” Further, plaintiff states that “although the trial court stated 

as a conclusion of law that sanctions short of dismissal would not suffice, it did not 

make findings of fact concerning the reasons that sanctions short of dismissal with 

prejudice would not suffice.”

“The standard of review for a Rule 41(b) dismissal is ‘(1) whether the findings 

of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence, and (2) whether the 

findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusions of law and its judgment.’ ” Cohen 

v. McLawhorn, 208 N.C. App. 492, 498, 704 S.E.2d 519, 524 (2010) (quoting Dean v. 

Hill, 171 N.C. App. 479, 483, 615 S.E.2d 699, 701 (2005)). “Unchallenged findings of 

fact are presumed to be supported by competent evidence, and are binding on appeal.” 

Id. (quoting Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir Cty. SPCA, Inc., 168 N.C. App. 298, 

305, 607 S.E.2d 317, 322 (2005)) (quotations omitted). 

“For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute . . . , a defendant may move for 

dismissal of an action or of any claim therein against him.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, 

Rule 41(b) (2013). This Court has stated that the trial court must address the 

following three factors before dismissing for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b): “(1) 

whether the plaintiff acted in a manner which deliberately or unreasonably delayed 

the matter; (2) the amount of prejudice, if any, to the defendant; and (3) the reason, 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

if one exists, that sanctions short of dismissal would not suffice.” Wilder v. Wilder, 

146 N.C. App. 574, 578, 553 S.E.2d 425, 428 (2001).

Here, the trial court addressed all three factors. It found in paragraph 

nineteen that plaintiff “engaged in undue and unreasonable delay.” It stated there 

are no facts indicating that plaintiff engaged in any activity with respect to this 

matter from December 2007 until February 2012 and no justification for such delay. 

Additionally, in paragraph twenty it found that plaintiff’s delay appeared “deliberate”

as plaintiff filed a complaint in state court, then chose to litigate in federal 

bankruptcy court, and then returned to state court.

The trial court addressed the second factor in paragraph twenty-one, stating, 

“Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s deliberate, tactical, undue, and 

unreasonable delay.” The trial court found that plaintiff’s extra-contractual claims 

arose over nine years ago, and defendants have had to retain counsel, file written 

motions, attend hearings, and argue motions. Additionally, the trial court noted that 

plaintiff is now seeking to change the character of the claims. 

Lastly, the trial court addressed the third factor in paragraph twenty-three, 

stating, “The Court has considered whether a less severe sanction than dismissal 

with prejudice is appropriate to serve the purpose of Rule 41(b), such as the exclusion 

of evidence or other sanctions, but the Court is unable to find anything short of 

dismissal with prejudice that would serve the purpose of Rule 41(b).”
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

In accordance with this Court’s decision in Wilder, the trial court properly 

addressed each of the required factors. The findings of fact are supported by 

competent evidence, which in turn support the trial court’s conclusions of law and 

judgment. The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with 

prejudice based on Rule 41(b). 

D. Rule 12(b)(1)

Plaintiff also argues, “To the extent that the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s 

claim based upon an allegation of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that dismissal 

is in error.” Here, the trial court did not grant defendants’ motion to dismiss based 

on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the trial court stated in its first 

conclusion of law that it had subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the 11 

December 2007 Order “did not dismiss this action but simply administratively closed 

the file and removed it from this Court’s active docket.” Therefore, plaintiff’s 

argument fails. 

E. Statute of Limitations 

Lastly, plaintiff argues that to the extent the trial court determined in 

conclusion of law number two that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claim, 

it was error. Plaintiff maintains that the tolling agreement the parties entered into 

should be enforced. Here, the second conclusion of law addresses res judicata and 

fails to mention “statute of limitations.” Additionally, although the trial court 
GREENSHIELDS, INC. V. TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AM.

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

discussed “passage of time” in the context of undue and unreasonable delay, it was 

the bankruptcy court that concluded plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of 

limitations. Thus, plaintiff’s argument is without merit. 

III. Conclusion

The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with 

prejudice or in denying plaintiff’s motions to amend its complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge INMAN concur.