Court Opinion

ID: 9477783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:30:55.672826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:02.532145
License: Public Domain

K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority’s opinion insofar as it reverses the district court’s holding that the public policy of North Carolina precludes insurance coverage of punitive damages. Unlike the majority, however, I believe that the insurance policy provided coverage for damages awarded against Dr. Prosnitz. In my view, the University can act only through its employees. When it purchased the insurance policy, it intended for its employees to be covered while acting in the scope of their duties. Dr. Pros-nitz was clearly acting within the scope of his duties as Dr. U’s supervisor in the underlying dispute. In addition, my reading of the insurance contract leads me to the conclusion that the Fellow Employees Protection Endorsement creates an ambiguity which should be resolved in favor of the insured. State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 350 S.E.2d 66 (1986).
Accordingly, I would find coverage for Dr. Prosnitz exists under the policy.