A dispute over payment for emergency repair services and insurance coverage continues after the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case involving a homeowner, an emergency services provider, and an insurance company. The conflict centers on whether the homeowner is liable for charges incurred after her ceiling collapsed and whether the insurer acted fairly in denying her claim.
The appeal was filed by Geraldine F. Simpson against RestorePro Reconstruction, Inc., with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company also named as a counterclaim defendant. The case originated in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, with Judge George C. Bell issuing an order on May 22, 2024. Both Simpson and State Farm appealed aspects of that order.
According to court documents, the incident began on November 18, 2021, when a large section of Simpson’s ceiling collapsed. She reported the damage to her homeowner’s insurer, State Farm. A State Farm agent referred her to RestorePro Reconstruction for emergency services. On November 19, Leslie Turner from RestorePro visited Simpson’s home and observed potential asbestos risks before presenting Simpson with a work authorization contract limited to emergency services.
The contract stated: “This authorization is only for emergency services… Property Owner understands that this is not a contract for reconstruction or restoration of damaged property.” It further specified that payment was due within 30 days and assigned insurance proceeds to RestorePro if applicable.
Simpson signed the contract after consulting with her daughter’s fiancé, who was a general contractor. Asbestos testing was performed by Mold Girl LLC; results were negative. However, before receiving those results, Simpson’s family undertook repairs themselves on November 20.
State Farm inspected the property on December 1 but found repairs already completed. On December 8, State Farm denied Simpson’s claim based on policy exclusions related to collapse and materials used in construction or repair.
RestorePro invoiced Simpson $1,998.11 for its services—primarily asbestos testing—and later sent a collection letter requesting $2,117.99 including late fees and interest. When Simpson refused payment, RestorePro filed suit in July 2022 alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Simpson responded by joining State Farm as a party and filing counterclaims against both companies for unfair and deceptive trade practices (UDTPA), slander of title (against RestorePro), breach of contract (against State Farm), and declaratory judgment (against both). She argued that she did not pay because State Farm wrongfully denied coverage and claimed collusion between RestorePro and State Farm.
During discovery, both RestorePro and State Farm moved for summary judgment on various claims; Simpson also sought to compel additional discovery from State Farm regarding its relationship with RestorePro through Contractor Connections—a third-party referral network—but the trial court denied this motion.
The trial court’s May 22 order made several rulings:
– Denied summary judgment on RestorePro’s breach of contract claim against Simpson;
– Partially granted summary judgment for RestorePro on unjust enrichment as to liability but left damages unresolved;
– Granted summary judgment dismissing most UDTPA counterclaims except those individually asserted by Simpson against State Farm;
– Dismissed slander of title claims against RestorePro;
– Denied summary judgment on Simpson’s breach of contract claim against State Farm;
– Denied additional discovery requests from Simpson regarding contracts between State Farm and Contractor Connections.
On appeal, the Court affirmed much of the lower court’s decision but vacated or reversed certain aspects after reviewing whether there were genuine issues requiring trial or if parties were entitled to judgment as a matter of law under North Carolina statutes.
Key findings included:
– The evidence did not support claims that RestorePro deceived Simpson into signing its contract or billed her for unperformed work;
– There was no contractual relationship between RestorePro and State Farm relevant to this incident—referrals occurred outside any formal program;
– The denial letter from State Farm failed to clearly connect policy language with facts about why coverage was denied—a point likened by the court to prior federal cases where insurers’ explanations were found insufficient under state law;
– Genuine factual questions remained about whether this failure caused injury under UDTPA standards; thus summary judgment was properly denied on that specific counterclaim against State Farm.
Simpson sought damages including treble damages under North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act if violations were proven at trial. She also requested enforcement or clarification regarding insurance obligations under her policy.
Legal representation included Scott Lewis and Shelley W. Coleman (Butler Snow LLP) for State Farm; Natalia L. Talbot and Paul A. Capua (Capua Law Firm P.A.) for Geraldine F. Simpson; Brian S. Edlin and Kyle A. Lewis (Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton PLLC) for RestorePro Reconstruction Inc.
The case is identified as No. COA24-923.
Source: COA24923_Restorepro_Reconstruction_Inc_v_Simpson_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
