CIM Insurance Corp. v. Cascade Auto Glass
North Carolina Court of Appeals
660 S.E.2d 907 (2008)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Through Safelite Solutions (Safelite), CIM Insurance Corporation (CIM) and 16 other insurers (insurers) (defendants) paid Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. (Cascade) (plaintiff) to repair automobile-windshield damage for the drivers they insured. Safelite informed Cascade that it intended to pay a smaller share of each claim and that by repairing a windshield, Cascade would indicate that it accepted the lower reimbursement that Safelite offered. Each time someone filed a claim, Safelite called Cascade to communicate what it offered to pay on the claim, repeated that completion of the repair would constitute Cascade’s acceptance of the offer, and confirmed the phone call with a follow-up fax. Each time, Cascade proceeded with the repair, but it protested the lower reimbursement. Each time, Safelite sent Cascade a check for the exact amount it had promised, and Cascade cashed the check. The insurers sued for a declaratory judgment as to the parties’ competing rights, and Cascade counterclaimed to collect the additional reimbursement it believed it was owed. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurers. Cascade appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
