Court Opinion

ID: 9560009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:40:47.882853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:58.702738
License: Public Domain

Judge PHILLIPS
concurring in the result.
Whether plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations need not be determined, in my opinion, because the record shows without contradiction that plaintiff’s claim has no merit since the loss that it seeks to recover from defendant was proximately caused by its own inexcusable neglect. The record shows that: Though plaintiff was served with a copy of the suit papers on 14 October 1981 (1) it never checked with the sheriff as to whether the insureds had been served; (2) it did not check with the Clerk’s office about the return until 18 November 1981, three days after the time for answering expired; (3) it did not engage defendant to defend the case until five days later and further delayed the defense of the case by instructing defendant not to make an appearance until service on the insureds was verified; (4) the instruction was pointless as the statute of limitations had a year and a half to run and if *417the sheriff’s return had been uncorrectibly defective the insureds, who were residents of that county, could have been readily reserved. Thus, when plaintiff engaged defendant to defend the case and instructed him to do nothing until a proper return of service was filed in the Clerk’s office the claimant was already entitled to a default judgment because of plaintiff’s inexcusable inattention to the litigation. Having entitled the claimant to a default judgment by its own neglect, plaintiff cannot recover the sum lost by the judgment from defendant. Similar inattention in attending to its court business by an insurer was held to be inexcusable neglect in Finlayson v. The American Accident Co., 109 N.C. 196, 13 S.E. 739 (1891).