Adjudication of neglect—sufficiency and specificity of findings—substantial risk of impairment—The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to vacate and remand the trial court's adjudication of respondent-mother's child as a neglected juvenile, holding that the trial court's findings regarding the mother's ongoing substance abuse, hallucinations, unsafe living conditions, and violation of a safety plan (two days after signing it) were sufficient to support the trial court's adjudication. Importantly, the trial court was not required to make a specific written finding regarding a substantial risk of impairment because its findings, when viewed by a reasonable person in the totality of the circumstances, contained enough factual specificity to logically support its conclusion that the child was neglected. In re L.C. , No. 108PA24 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Punitive damages—insurance application—material misrepresentations by agent—willful and wanton conduct—In a real property insurance dispute arising from an insurer's cancellation of plaintiff's homeowners policy and refusal to cover plaintiff's losses from hurricane damage, plaintiff's claim against his insurance agent for punitive damages based on gross negligence–for submitting an application for insurance that contained material misrepresentations, which was the basis for the insurer's actions–was not subject to dismissal at the pleading stage. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to support punitive damages based on willful and wanton conduct and to put the agent on notice of that aggravating factor, where the details of the agent's conduct were averred with particularity, including that the agent: induced plaintiff to apply for a policy with a new insurer by promising the same coverage at a lower premium; knowingly misrepresented basic information about plaintiff's property on the application for insurance (by failing to disclose the existence of a pond on the property and understating the size of the property by several acres); and realized a financial gain by obtaining issuance of the new policy. Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Ins. Agencies, Inc. , No. 264A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Public official—not available to an employee of a government agency—position not created by statute—no exercise of sovereign power—In a tort action brought by a surgeon (plaintiff) against his former supervisor (defendant), who held several positions at the UNC Burn Center (part of UNC Hospitals)–alleging, among other claims, tortious interference with contract and slander per se in the form of false accusations of inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and sexual misconduct by plaintiff at his going-away party–the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground of public official immunity. Public official immunity did not extend to defendant because his positions (1) as division chief did not arise under the constitution, by statute, or through the delegated authority of the State, and the conduct at issue did not involve the discretionary exercise of sovereign power; and (2) as medical director did not involve the discretionary exercise of sovereign power. Hwang v. Cairns , No. 58PA23 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Misconduct—DWI—minor daughter in car—uncooperative during arrest—invoking judicial title to avoid legal consequences—censure—The Supreme Court censured a district court judge for violations of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct–amounting to willful misconduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice–after the judge was arrested for driving while impaired, where he: had been driving with a high blood alcohol level (.23) on a workday during regular court hours, and with his thirteen-year-old daughter inside the car; was uncooperative with and disrespectful toward the officer who arrested him; and then repeatedly invoked his judicial title while pleading with the officer for leniency. After weighing the egregiousness of the judge's conduct against his commendable behavior following his arrest (he self-reported the incident to the Judicial Standards Commission, cooperated with the Commission's investigation, and sought treatment for alcohol abuse), the Court concluded that censure was the appropriate sanction, while noting that it was also the "minimum acceptable consequence" in this case. In re Kimble , No. 321A24 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Criminal trial—constitutional right to unanimity—amended juror substitution statute—deliberations begin anew—In a prosecution that resulted in convictions on charges of first-degree murder and assault with intent to kill inflicting serious injury arising from a shooting at a hotel that left a man dead and a woman injured, defendant's state constitutional right that a conviction only be returned by a unanimous jury of twelve was not violated where, after a partial hour of deliberations was completed, one juror was excused, an alternate juror was substituted, and the newly composed jury was instructed to restart its deliberations from the beginning. The amended version of the statutory section relied upon by the trial court (N.C.G.S. § 15A-1215(a))–allowing a juror to be excused and an alternate juror to be substituted after the deliberations in a criminal trial had begun (altering the previous version of the law, which only allowed such a substitution before the case was submitted to the jury)–was upheld because it required that (1) no "more than 12 jurors participate in the jury's deliberations," and (2) after a substitution, the jury must begin its deliberations anew. State v. Chambers , No. 56PA24 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Insurance agent—misrepresentations on application—sufficiency of pleading—no contributory negligence as a matter of law—In a real property insurance dispute arising from an insurer's cancellation of plaintiff's homeowners policy and refusal to cover plaintiff's losses from hurricane damage, plaintiff's claim against his insurance agent for ordinary negligence–by submitting an application for insurance that contained material misrepresentations, which was the basis for the insurer's actions–was not subject to dismissal pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). First, plaintiff adequately pleaded the claim by alleging that the agent assured plaintiff that the new policy would provide the same coverage as his existing coverage, told plaintiff that all he needed to do was sign the (single) application page and make the first payment, and had previously applied for and obtained a policy for plaintiff using this same procedure. Second, although plaintiff signed a blank application page and trusted his agent to accurately complete the application without reading the entire document, since plaintiff alleged a prior course of conduct between himself and the agent as well as the agent's specific assurances regarding the new policy, the complaint did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law sufficient to overcome the ordinary negligence claim. Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Ins. Agencies, Inc. , No. 264A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Right to unanimous verdict—first-degree forcible sexual offense—disjunctive instruction—evidence of alternative acts to establish an element—no error—In defendant's prosecution on charges including two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense, his right to a unanimous jury verdict was not violated where the trial court instructed the jury that it could find defendant guilty of each count upon its determination that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed a "sexual act"–an element of first-degree forcible sexual offense–against the victim, as established by the commission of any qualifying underlying act which the evidence tended to show: fellatio, anal intercourse, or any penetration of the victim's genital or anal openings. While jury unanimity as to the commission of the element–a "sexual act"–was required, there was no error, let alone plain error, in the disjunctive instruction listing multiple alternative acts, any one of which could establish that element. The Court of Appeals' holding to the contrary was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court for consideration of defendant's other arguments. State v. Bowman , No. 49A24 (N.C. May. 23, 2025) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)