Maritime Advisors, LLC’s legal battle against HC Composites, LLC has hit a significant roadblock. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Maritime Advisors on January 7, 2026. The case was initially brought before the Edgecombe County Superior Court by Maritime Advisors, who alleged that HC Composites breached a contract. However, the trial court ruled in favor of HC Composites, dismissing the case due to issues with standing and jurisdiction.
The lawsuit traces back to an agreement signed on July 26, 2018, between Marine Industry Advisors (MIA) and HC Composites concerning boat sales. Notably, MIA had been involuntarily dissolved in June 2016 but entered into this contract over two years later. Maritime Advisors was formed in October 2018 as a separate entity from MIA and also faced dissolution in June 2021. Despite their distinct statuses, Maritime Advisors filed a complaint on January 4, 2022, alleging breach of contract and seeking compensation under quantum meruit.
HC Composites responded with a motion to dismiss on March 11, 2024, arguing that Maritime Advisors lacked standing since it was not party to the original agreement. In an attempt to salvage the case, Maritime Advisors filed a motion to substitute or join MIA as the real party in interest after MIA’s reinstatement on March 22, 2024. However, Judge Timothy W. Wilson denied this motion on June 24, 2024.
The appellate court upheld this decision due to procedural missteps by Maritime Advisors. The appeal was dismissed because only parties aggrieved by a court order can file an appeal under North Carolina law. As Maritime Advisors did not sign the original agreement and had no legal rights under it, they were not considered aggrieved by the trial court’s decision. Furthermore, although MIA could potentially be aggrieved following its reinstatement, it did not file an appeal.
Maritime Advisors sought relief through substitution or joinder of MIA as well as damages for breach of contract and compensation under quantum meruit principles. However, these efforts were thwarted by procedural deficiencies and questions about jurisdictional standing.
The attorneys involved include Lloyd C. “Clif” Smith II from Pritchett & Burch PLLC representing Maritime Advisors and Bryant Duke Paris III from Bryant Duke Paris III PLLC along with Katherine Walton Halliday from Scialdone Law Firm representing HC Composites. The case was presided over by Judges Flood, Stroud, and Freeman under Case ID No. COA25-40.
Source: COA25040_Maritime_Advisors_LLC_v_HC_Composites_LLC_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
