Case Name: WILLIE O. BEASLEY v. NATIONAL SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1986-04-02
Citations: 316 N.C. 372
Docket Number: No. 395PA85
Parties: WILLIE O. BEASLEY v. NATIONAL SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 316
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
WILLIE O. BEASLEY v. NATIONAL SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 395PA85
(Filed 2 April 1986)
WE granted plaintiffs petition for discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 on 19 September 1985 to review the decision of the Court of Appeals (Parker, J., with Arnold, J., and Eagles, J., concurring) reported at 75 N.C. App. 104, 330 S.E. 2d 207 (1985). This civil action was filed seeking compensatory and punitive damages growing out of defendant’s failure to pay medical and hospital expenses allegedly due pursuant to provision of a contract of insurance issued by defendant. Plaintiff alleged six causes of action in support of his claim for damages: (i) breach of contract, (ii) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iii) fraud, (iv) violation of the unfair and deceptive trade practices act, (v) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (vi) outrage. Defendant answered in the nature of a general denial and also asserted as a further defense “false, untrue, incomplete and material misrepresentations of the plaintiff’ as a bar to any liability under the policy.
Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the trial court dismissed all causes of action except the claim for breach of contract. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Brenton D. Adams, attorney for plaintiff-appellant.
Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by R. Michael Strickland, David M. Duke and Edward B. Clark, attorneys for defendant-appe lie e.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Having carefully considered the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the records, briefs and oral arguments in the case before us, we conclude that our order of 19 September 1985 allowing the plaintiffs petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed.
Discretionary review improvidently allowed.