## Facts

- King and Blanton were involved in an automobile collision on April 23, 2010, and each contended the other ran a red light.
- On July 14, 2010, Blanton sued King for negligence, alleging King’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of Blanton’s injuries and property damage.
- King was defended in the first action by counsel provided by her insurer, but she did not file an answer with any counterclaim in the record and did not assert a negligence counterclaim against Blanton.
- In May 2011, the parties settled the first action; Blanton voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice on May 3, 2011.
- On June 30, 2011, King filed a new negligence action against Blanton based on the same April 2010 collision, alleging Blanton’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of King’s injuries.
- Blanton moved to dismiss in the second action on the ground that King’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim in the first action; the trial court considered materials outside the pleadings, treated the matter as summary judgment, and dismissed King’s action with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether King’s negligence claim arising from the same automobile accident was a compulsory counterclaim that had to be asserted in Blanton’s earlier action under Rule 13(a).
2. Whether King’s failure to assert that compulsory counterclaim before the first action was dismissed with prejudice barred King from bringing a later, separate negligence suit.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Blanton.
- King’s later negligence claim arose from the same “transaction or occurrence” as Blanton’s earlier negligence action and therefore was a compulsory counterclaim.
- By failing to assert the compulsory counterclaim while the first case was pending and settling without filing it, King waived the claim and was estopped from suing later based on the same accident.
- Because the relevant facts (same accident, same parties, no counterclaim, dismissal with prejudice, later suit) were undisputed, Blanton was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.C. R. Civ. P. 13(a), a party must plead as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim, absent exceptions not applicable here.
- A claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence when there is a logical relationship between the claims, including overlapping issues of fact and law and substantially the same evidence.
- Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim may operate as waiver/estoppel, barring later litigation of that claim when the party knew of the claim and had an opportunity to file it before the first action ended, including by settlement and dismissal with prejudice.
- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review of the legal question is de novo.

## Conclusion

Because King’s negligence claim stemmed from the same collision litigated in Blanton’s earlier suit and should have been raised as a compulsory counterclaim, King’s failure to assert it before the first case was settled and dismissed with prejudice waived the claim and barred her subsequent action.


King v. Blanton, 735 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)