COA says receiver can pursue drunk driver's claims against her lawyers.

Byline: David Donovan

The family of a woman killed in a 2013 drunk driving accident in Chatham County has won a major victory in its efforts to a collect a $4.3 million verdict handed down against the at-fault driver. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has instructed the trial court to appoint a receiver to pursue potential legal claims the driver may have against her insurer and its lawyers, after she refused to take any action to pursue those claims herself.

Julie Haarhuis (pronounced har-house) died after being hit by a car driven by Emily Cheek. Universal Insurance Company insured Cheek's vehicle and determined that the value of Haarhuis's claim exceeded the limits of her $50,000 policy. Haarhuis's estate agreed to release its claims against Cheek in exchange for $50,000, so long as Universal paid within 10 days.

Universal failed to respond to the offer in time. (Haarhuis's lawyers, in their brief, say that Universal's attorney neglected to note the offer period in the settlement demand.) It proved to be a costly mistake, as a Chatham County jury awarded the large verdict in Haarhuis's favor in 2016. So far, however, the estate has been unable to actually collect on the judgment.

Haarhuis asked the trial court to appoint a receiver, arguing that Cheek possessed property in the form of unliquidated legal claims against Universal and its law firm, Burton, Sue & Anderson, for their actions in causing her to be encumbered with the judgment. (Court records did not explain why exactly Cheek is refusing to pursue those claims.)

Superior Court Judge Elaine O'Neal denied the motion, but on Sept. 18 the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed, saying that O'Neal had abused her discretion in failing to appoint the receiver.

Judge Valerie Zachary, writing for the court, said that given the equitable considerations present in the case, the trial court should have appointed a receiver. The facts of the case suggested that Cheek would have potential claims against Universal and its firmthough it will ultimately be up to the receiver to decide what claims, if any, to pursueand there were no countervailing reasons why it would be improper to appoint a receiver, Zachary said. She noted that there were no other apparent means by which Cheek could satisfy the judgment against her.

"It is alleged that Universal and Burton are indebted to defendant as a result of acts in connection with the underlying litigation in the instant case, and that the proceeds of...