{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:85f6be", "proof": "sha256:0d3f1400adc12e5ba94dda4eb8dccc49040a5de9985e0a8c9e894fea09984d04", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 203PA24", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed 20 March 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JAVA WARREN and JANNIFER WARREN", "paragraphs": [ "para_5" ] }, { "title": "CIELO VENTURES, INC. d/b/a SERVPRO NORTH CENTRAL MECKLENBURG", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "COUNTY", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision", "paragraphs": [ "para_9" ] }, { "title": "May 2022 by Judge Louis A. Trosch in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_11", "para_12", "para_13" ] }, { "title": "Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP, by M. Duane Jones, for defendant-", "paragraphs": [ "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18" ] }, { "title": "Though the parties’ agreement provided for a one-year contractual limitation period", "paragraphs": [ "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_25", "para_26", "para_27" ] }, { "title": "I. Factual and Procedural Background", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In July 2017, plaintiffs’ water heater malfunctioned and began leaking a", "paragraphs": [ "para_30", "para_31" ] }, { "title": "After inspecting the damage, defendant presented plaintiffs with its two-page", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37" ] }, { "title": "In underlined bold print, the words “READ CAREFULLY” appeared at the top", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41" ] }, { "title": "Relevant here, the seventh of these terms provided:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "7. Any claim by Client for faulty performance, for", "paragraphs": [ "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "REGARDLESS OF FORM, RELATING TO THE", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT MAY BE", "paragraphs": [ "para_51" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_53" ] }, { "title": "BROUGHT MORE THAN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CLAIMING PARTY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN", "paragraphs": [ "para_56" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiff Jannifer Warren signed the agreement, and plaintiffs vacated the", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64" ] }, { "title": "Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Defendant moved for summary judgment on", "paragraphs": [ "para_66" ] }, { "title": "After considering the parties’ arguments, the trial court stated, “I am going to grant", "paragraphs": [ "para_68" ] }, { "title": "The trial court thereafter entered an order granting defendant’s motion for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_70" ] }, { "title": "At the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs argued that N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2, which", "paragraphs": [ "para_72" ] }, { "title": "Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), “precludes contractual time limitations of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1 Prior to the filing of their complaint, plaintiffs’ homeowner’s insurance provider paid", "paragraphs": [ "para_75", "para_76", "para_77" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_79" ] }, { "title": "UDTPA claims.”2 Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc., 293 N.C. App. 784, 786 (2024). The", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court of Appeals recognized that “our courts have acknowledged the ability of parties", "paragraphs": [ "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88" ] }, { "title": "II. Standard of Review", "paragraphs": [ "para_90", "para_91", "para_92" ] }, { "title": "(cleaned up). Similarly, we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Morris", "paragraphs": [ "para_94" ] }, { "title": "III. Discussion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Statutes of limitations set general time limits for bringing claims and are", "paragraphs": [ "para_97" ] }, { "title": "2 Plaintiffs also argued that “precedent rejects one-year limitation clauses for UDTPA", "paragraphs": [ "para_99" ] }, { "title": "Ventures, Inc., 293 N.C. App. 784, 786–87 (2024). As we did not grant discretionary review", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109" ] }, { "title": "Const. art. I, § 6 (“The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "Though statutes of limitations establish the maximum amount of time that can", "paragraphs": [ "para_113", "para_114", "para_115" ] }, { "title": "See Muse v. London Assurance Corp., 108 N.C. 240, 241–42 (1891) (“It seems to be", "paragraphs": [ "para_117", "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "States has also recognized this principle:", "paragraphs": [ "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_132" ] }, { "title": "Ord. of United Com. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608 (1947). Thus, parties", "paragraphs": [ "para_134", "para_135" ] }, { "title": "The legislature has established a four-year limitation period for bringing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UDTPA claims, N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2 (2025), and in the absence of an agreement to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141" ] }, { "title": "Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union, 386 N.C. 18, 22–23 (2024) (“[W]ritten", "paragraphs": [ "para_143", "para_144" ] }, { "title": "Nor are there any serious contentions that the legislature has enacted a statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_146", "para_147" ] }, { "title": "N.C. 73 (1932) (upholding one-year limitation); Welch v. Phx. Ins. Co., 192 N.C. 809", "paragraphs": [ "para_149" ] }, { "title": "Instead, plaintiffs argue, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that “the policy", "paragraphs": [ "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161" ] }, { "title": "It is not for the courts to second-guess legislative policy decisions or to insert", "paragraphs": [ "para_163" ] }, { "title": "(2014) (“[I]t is our duty to give effect to the words actually used in a statute and not", "paragraphs": [ "para_165" ] }, { "title": "(1978) (“[C]ourts must give the statute its plain and definite meaning, and are", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172" ] }, { "title": "796 (1909))).3 To hold otherwise would require this Court to superimpose a", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3 The dissent equates legislative silence with a statutory prohibition, turning our", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185" ] }, { "title": "The privilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property", "paragraphs": [ "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197" ] }, { "title": "Here, the legislature has not chosen to “impose reasonable restrictions” on", "paragraphs": [ "para_199", "para_200" ] }, { "title": "Because there is no controlling statutory language prohibiting contractual limitation", "paragraphs": [ "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206" ] }, { "title": "Taken to its logical conclusion, the dissent’s rationale would allow for courts to", "paragraphs": [ "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216" ] }, { "title": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219" ] }, { "title": "Appeals therefore erred in concluding the one-year contractual limitation in this case", "paragraphs": [ "para_221" ] }, { "title": "IV. Conclusion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The public policy of this State, including statutes of limitations and", "paragraphs": [ "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "The Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) declares certain", "paragraphs": [ "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "The question presented is whether a generic contractual limitation clause", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245" ] }, { "title": "The facts of this case illustrate the problem. After a water heater leak severely", "paragraphs": [ "para_247", "para_248" ] }, { "title": "Cielo Ventures represented that the situation was urgent and required immediate", "paragraphs": [ "para_250", "para_251", "para_252" ] }, { "title": "Cielo Ventures to perform remediation. However, according to the complaint, Cielo", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ventures failed to perform the promised remediation work. Instead, it directed its", "paragraphs": [ "para_255" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270" ] }, { "title": "In my view, that interpretation rests on an unreasonable inference from the", "paragraphs": [ "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277" ] }, { "title": "Because the majority’s interpretation undermines the statutory scheme", "paragraphs": [ "para_279" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282", "para_283" ] }, { "title": "I. The UDTPA creates a statutory remedy that operates independently of", "paragraphs": [ "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Our task when interpreting a statute is to give effect to the General Assembly’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_287", "para_288", "para_289" ] }, { "title": "At the same time, courts must interpret statutes in a manner consistent with", "paragraphs": [ "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295" ] }, { "title": "N.C. 885, 889 (2018) (quoting State v. Beck, 359 N.C. 611, 614 (2005)). Likewise, even", "paragraphs": [ "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300" ] }, { "title": "These principles apply with particular force when a court is asked to draw an", "paragraphs": [ "para_302" ] }, { "title": "The absence of an express provision addressing a particular circumstance does not", "paragraphs": [ "para_304" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310" ] }, { "title": "The majority nevertheless does exactly that here. Chapter 75 expressly", "paragraphs": [ "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316" ] }, { "title": "That inference is difficult to reconcile with the basic principles of statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_318", "para_319", "para_320" ] }, { "title": "Yet the rule adopted by the majority permits private contracts to narrow the time", "paragraphs": [ "para_322" ] }, { "title": "Understanding the nature of a UDTPA claim is essential to resolving the", "paragraphs": [ "para_324", "para_325", "para_326" ] }, { "title": "The UDTPA declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting", "paragraphs": [ "para_328" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_330", "para_331" ] }, { "title": "N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a). The statute further authorizes any person injured by such", "paragraphs": [ "para_333" ] }, { "title": "N.C.G.S. § 75-16. Through this statutory framework, the General Assembly created", "paragraphs": [ "para_335", "para_336" ] }, { "title": "Importantly, a claim under the UDTPA exists independently of traditional", "paragraphs": [ "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "N.C. App. 586, 593 (1998), aff’d per curiam, 350 N.C. 90 (1999). Indeed, the statute is", "paragraphs": [ "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348" ] }, { "title": "Truck Sales, Inc., 68 N.C. App. 228, 230, disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 751 (1984)", "paragraphs": [ "para_350" ] }, { "title": "North Carolina courts have consistently recognized the breadth of the statute’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_352" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_354", "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "(1991). Consistent with that expansive language, courts have applied the statute in", "paragraphs": [ "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361" ] }, { "title": "Further, the Court of Appeals has expressly recognized that an action for", "paragraphs": [ "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368" ] }, { "title": "UDTPA claims and the contract limitations period to the contract claims. Id. at 251", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“[P]laintiffs’ UDTP claim was separate and distinct from plaintiffs’ claims on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_371", "para_372" ] }, { "title": "Preferred Credit, 172 N.C. App. 407, 414 (2005) (applying UDTPA’s four-year", "paragraphs": [ "para_374", "para_375", "para_376" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381" ] }, { "title": "Likewise, a plaintiff need not even be in contractual privity with the defendant", "paragraphs": [ "para_383" ] }, { "title": "(1996). And where the parties are in privity, proving breach of contract is usually not", "paragraphs": [ "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388" ] }, { "title": "N.C. at 548. These decisions reflect the statute’s function as a mechanism for", "paragraphs": [ "para_390", "para_391" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, courts have recognized UDTPA claims arising from conduct that", "paragraphs": [ "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397" ] }, { "title": "635–36 (2005). In such cases, the statute serves precisely the function the General", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assembly intended: providing a remedy where private contractual arrangements", "paragraphs": [ "para_400" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_402", "para_403", "para_404" ] }, { "title": "UDTPA claim where doing so would defeat UDTPA’s protections for aggrieved North", "paragraphs": [ "para_406" ] }, { "title": "The statutory structure of Chapter 75 reinforces the conclusion that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413" ] }, { "title": "N.C.G.S. § 75-15 (2025). Among this comprehensive enforcement scheme, the General", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Assembly prescribed the limitations period governing such actions: “Any civil action", "paragraphs": [ "para_416", "para_417" ] }, { "title": "By enacting § 75-16.2, the legislature made a deliberate determination", "paragraphs": [ "para_419" ] }, { "title": "General Assembly creates a statutory cause of action and specifies the period within", "paragraphs": [ "para_421", "para_422" ] }, { "title": "(“It is always presumed that the legislature acted with care and deliberation and with", "paragraphs": [ "para_424" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430" ] }, { "title": "(quoting McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479, 483 (1956)). The General Assembly", "paragraphs": [ "para_432", "para_433", "para_434" ] }, { "title": "In summary, because the UDTPA regulates marketplace conduct rather than", "paragraphs": [ "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440" ] }, { "title": "This distinction is critical here. The cause of action asserted by the Warrens", "paragraphs": [ "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445" ] }, { "title": "II. The majority’s interpretation rests on an unreasonable inference from", "paragraphs": [ "para_447" ] }, { "title": "The majority nevertheless concludes that a contractual limitation clause may", "paragraphs": [ "para_449" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459" ] }, { "title": "(action on insurance policy contract was bound by policy’s one-year limitation period", "paragraphs": [ "para_461", "para_462" ] }, { "title": "Ord. of United Com. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 588–89, 599 (1947)", "paragraphs": [ "para_464" ] }, { "title": "Nat’l Sur. Co., 202 N.C. 73, 73–74 (1932) (action on surety bond tied to contract for", "paragraphs": [ "para_466", "para_467", "para_468" ] }, { "title": "Of course, where a right arises from contract, the contract can reasonably limit", "paragraphs": [ "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_475", "para_476", "para_477" ] }, { "title": "We have long recognized limits on the ability of private parties to waive", "paragraphs": [ "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483" ] }, { "title": "More recently, this Court reiterated that principle when considering whether", "paragraphs": [ "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488" ] }, { "title": "LLC, 368 N.C. 301, 308 (2015). In that circumstance, even though the statute was", "paragraphs": [ "para_490", "para_491", "para_492" ] }, { "title": "The same concern arises here. Chapter 75 represents the General Assembly’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_499", "para_500", "para_501" ] }, { "title": "Indeed, the implications of the majority’s rule extend beyond the limitations", "paragraphs": [ "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508" ] }, { "title": "Taking the majority’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, the majority appears", "paragraphs": [ "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517" ] }, { "title": "1 The majority states that the approach to statutory interpretation advanced here", "paragraphs": [ "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_525" ] }, { "title": "In short, the legislature created the cause of action and determined that it may", "paragraphs": [ "para_527", "para_528", "para_529" ] }, { "title": "III. This case does not involve an express agreement to limit statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_531" ] }, { "title": "Finally, even if some contracts could limit a UDTPA statute of limitations", "paragraphs": [ "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544" ] }, { "title": "Perhaps the majority is intent on collapsing UDTPA actions into contract actions here", "paragraphs": [ "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559" ] }, { "title": "At most, the clause reflects an agreement about the time for bringing contract", "paragraphs": [ "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564" ] }, { "title": "This appeal therefore does not require us to decide whether parties might ever", "paragraphs": [ "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572" ] }, { "title": "Perhaps a different case—one involving sophisticated commercial actors who", "paragraphs": [ "para_574", "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraphs": [ "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "No. 203PA24", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Filed 20 March 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "JAVA WARREN and JANNIFER WARREN", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CIELO VENTURES, INC. d/b/a SERVPRO NORTH CENTRAL MECKLENBURG", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "COUNTY", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "of the Court of Appeals, 293 N.C. App. 784 (2024), vacating an order entered on 23", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "May 2022 by Judge Louis A. Trosch in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, and", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 September", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "2025.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Derek Crawford, Jeffrey Mitchell, and Hugo Chanez for plaintiff-appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP, by M. Duane Jones, for defendant-", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "BERGER, Justice.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs contracted with defendant to remediate water damage to their home,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "but defendant never initiated the work and plaintiffs’ home had to be demolished.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Though the parties’ agreement provided for a one-year contractual limitation period", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "to bring any claim arising from the subject matter of the contract, plaintiffs filed an", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against defendant nearly three years after", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "plaintiffs knew of defendant’s wrongful conduct. The trial court granted defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "-2-", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment based upon the contractual limitation period, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals reversed. We reverse the Court of Appeals.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "I. Factual and Procedural Background", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "In July 2017, plaintiffs’ water heater malfunctioned and began leaking a", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "substantial amount of water into their home. Plaintiffs contacted their homeowner’s", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "insurance provider, which in turn contacted defendant to address the water damage.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "After inspecting the damage, defendant presented plaintiffs with its two-page", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "“Authorization to Perform Services and Direction of Payment” agreement. The", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "agreement stated in all capital letters and bold text directly above the signature line:", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "“I have read this authorization to perform services and direction of payment,", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "including the terms and conditions of service on the next page hereof, and agree to", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "the same.”", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "In underlined bold print, the words “READ CAREFULLY” appeared at the top", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "of the second page of the two-page agreement, followed by “Note: This Contract", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "includes a limitation of liability and limitation of remedies.” The second page of the", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "agreement also contained the contract’s eleven terms and conditions of service.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Relevant here, the seventh of these terms provided:", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "7. Any claim by Client for faulty performance, for", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "nonperformance or breach under this Contract for damages", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "shall be made in writing to Provider within sixty (60) days", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "after completion of services. Failure to make such a written", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "claim for any matter which could have been corrected by", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Provider shall be deemed a waiver by Client. NO ACTION,", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "REGARDLESS OF FORM, RELATING TO THE", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT MAY BE", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "-3-", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "BROUGHT MORE THAN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "CLAIMING PARTY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Plaintiff Jannifer Warren signed the agreement, and plaintiffs vacated the", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "home on 10 July 2017 for defendant to begin the remediation work. However, ten", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "days later plaintiffs discovered that defendant had taken no action to remediate the", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "water damage. Plaintiffs contacted another remediation company which immediately", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "began work on the home. Despite these efforts, an assessment revealed visible mold", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "throughout the home, and it was later demolished.1", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "On 9 July 2021, after the one-year contractual limitation period expired,", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "plaintiffs filed an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against defendant in", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Defendant moved for summary judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "17 February 2022, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion on 17 May 2022.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "After considering the parties’ arguments, the trial court stated, “I am going to grant", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "the motion for summary judgment in this case based on the statute of limitations.”", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "The trial court thereafter entered an order granting defendant’s motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "judgment on 23 May 2022. Plaintiffs appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "At the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs argued that N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2, which", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "provides a four-year statute of limitation for claims brought under the Unfair and", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), “precludes contractual time limitations of", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "1 Prior to the filing of their complaint, plaintiffs’ homeowner’s insurance provider paid", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "$871,875.00 under the dwelling portion of their policy and asserted a subrogation claim", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "against defendant, which was settled for $100,000.00.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "-4-", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "UDTPA claims.”2 Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc., 293 N.C. App. 784, 786 (2024). The", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals recognized that “our courts have acknowledged the ability of parties", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "to contractually shorten their claim limitations in some cases,” but nevertheless held", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "the one-year contractual limitation period in defendant’s agreement was", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "unenforceable because “public policy weighs against permitting contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "abrogation of the [four-year] UDTPA statute of limitations.” Id. at 789–90. The Court", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 790. Defendant petitioned", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "this Court for discretionary review, which we allowed on 11 December 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "II. Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "“We review de novo an appeal of a summary judgment order. When reviewing", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "a matter de novo, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "judgment for that of the lower courts.” Moseley v. Hendricks, 388 N.C. 128, 135 (2025)", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "(cleaned up). Similarly, we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Morris", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "v. Rodeberg, 385 N.C. 405, 409 (2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "III. Discussion", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Statutes of limitations set general time limits for bringing claims and are", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "public policy choices that “represent the legislature’s determination of the point at", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "2 Plaintiffs also argued that “precedent rejects one-year limitation clauses for UDTPA", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "claims as unreasonable,” and the Court of Appeals rejected that argument. Warren v. Cielo", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Ventures, Inc., 293 N.C. App. 784, 786–87 (2024). As we did not grant discretionary review", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "on this issue, we do not address it.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "-5-", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "which the right of a party to pursue a claim must yield to competing interests.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "“The Legislature alone may determine the policy of the State, and its will is supreme,", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "except where limited by constitutional inhibition, which exception or limitation, when", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "invoked, presents a question of power for the courts to decide.” Holmes v. Moore, 384", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "N.C. 426, 435 (2023) (quoting State v. Revis, 193 N.C. 192, 195 (1927)); see also N.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Const. art. I, § 6 (“The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other”).", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Though statutes of limitations establish the maximum amount of time that can", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "elapse between the accrual of a claim and the filing of that claim, this Court", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "acknowledged more than a century ago that individuals may agree to contractually", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "shorten the time to bring claims arising out of the subject matter of that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "See Muse v. London Assurance Corp., 108 N.C. 240, 241–42 (1891) (“It seems to be", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "established that a provision in a policy that the insured may bring suit within 12", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "months after the less, and not later, . . . is not in contravention of the policy of statutes", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "of limitation, and will be upheld by the courts.”). The Supreme Court of the United", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "States has also recognized this principle:", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "[I]n the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "provision in a contract may validly limit, between the", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "parties, the time for bringing an action on such contract to", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "a period less than that prescribed in the general statute of", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "limitations, provided that the shorter period itself shall be", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "a reasonable period. Such shorter periods, written into", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "private contracts, also have been held to be entitled to the", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "constitutional protection of the Fourteenth Amendment", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "under appropriate circumstances.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "-6-", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Ord. of United Com. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608 (1947). Thus, parties", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "may agree to decrease the general limitation period for bringing claims if: (1) no", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "statute forbids a shorter period, and (2) the shorter period is reasonable.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "The legislature has established a four-year limitation period for bringing", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "UDTPA claims, N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2 (2025), and in the absence of an agreement to the", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "contrary, this limitation period controls. But the parties here explicitly reduced the", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "limitation period for any claims “relating to the subject matter” of their contract to", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "one year. It is undisputed that plaintiff Jannifer Warren signed the contract, and", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "plaintiffs have not argued such signing was the product of coercion or duress. See", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union, 386 N.C. 18, 22–23 (2024) (“[W]ritten", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "contracts are to be construed and enforced according to their terms. . . . [W]hen the", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "parties’ intent is clearly expressed, it must be enforced as it is written.” (cleaned up)).", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "Nor are there any serious contentions that the legislature has enacted a statute", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "forbidding contractual limitation periods for UDTPA claim or that a one-year", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "limitation period is per se unreasonable. See Horne-Wilson, Inc. v. Nat’l Sur. Co., 202", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "N.C. 73 (1932) (upholding one-year limitation); Welch v. Phx. Ins. Co., 192 N.C. 809", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "(1926) (same).", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Instead, plaintiffs argue, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that “the policy", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "underpinning the UDTPA” prohibits the one-year limitation clause plaintiffs agreed", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "to. Warren, 293 N.C. App. at 786. The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "legislative purpose of the UDTPA is “[t]o provide civil legal means to maintain ethical", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "-7-", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "standards of dealing between persons engaged in business and the consuming public,”", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "the contractual limitation must yield “where the interests of justice require", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "vindication of the plaintiff’s rights,” despite the legislature’s silence on the issue. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "at 789–90 (cleaned up). This was error because the plain language of the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "provides no prohibition on contractual limitation.", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "It is not for the courts to second-guess legislative policy decisions or to insert", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "unwritten terms into a statutory scheme. See Lunsford v. Mills, 367 N.C. 618, 623", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "(2014) (“[I]t is our duty to give effect to the words actually used in a statute and not", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "to delete words used or to insert words not used”); In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236, 239", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "(1978) (“[C]ourts must give the statute its plain and definite meaning, and are", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "contained therein.”). If the legislature intended to forbid contractually shortened", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "limitation periods for UDTPA claims, it would have said so in the UDTPA. See State", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "v. Daw, 386 N.C. 468, 476 (2024) (“When interpreting a statute, ‘it must be presumed", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "that the means employed by the Legislature to express its will are adequate to the", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "purpose and do express that will correctly.’ ” (quoting State v. Barco, 150 N.C. 792,", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "796 (1909))).3 To hold otherwise would require this Court to superimpose a", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "3 The dissent equates legislative silence with a statutory prohibition, turning our", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "interpretative rules on their heads. Because “[t]he Legislature is presumed to know the", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "existing law and to legislate with reference to it,” State v. S. Ry. Co., 145 N.C. 495, 542 (1907),", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "we presume that in enacting section 75-16.2 the legislature knew that “in the absence of a", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "controlling statute to the contrary, a provision in a contract may validly limit . . . the time for", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "bringing on action on such contract to a period less than that prescribed in the general statute", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "of limitations, provided that the shorter period itself shall be a reasonable period,” Wolfe, 331", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "-8-", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "contractual limitation prohibition onto the statute and thereby erode the", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "fundamental right to contract in the absence of legislative action.", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "The privilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "right. The right to contract is recognized as being within", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "the Constitution of the United States; and protected by", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "state Constitutions. It has been held that the right to make", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "contracts is embraced in the conception of liberty as", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . The Legislature has", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "the power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "contract when the restrictions imposed are conducive to", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "public good. . . . But freedom of contract is the general rule", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "and restraint the exception.", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "Alford v. Textile Ins. Co., 248 N.C. 224, 227 (1958) (cleaned up).", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "Here, the legislature has not chosen to “impose reasonable restrictions” on", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "individuals’ rights to contractually shorten the limitation period for UDPTA claims,", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "and we must therefore default to “the general rule” of freedom of contract. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "Because there is no controlling statutory language prohibiting contractual limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "periods of UDTPA claims, and because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate or", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "meaningfully argue that the one-year limitation period here is unreasonable, the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "U.S. at 608. The dissent therefore asks the reader to believe that the legislature knew its", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "silence would allow for reasonable contractual limitation periods yet somehow intended", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "silence in the UDTPA to be an affirmative legislative prohibition on the right to contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Taken to its logical conclusion, the dissent’s rationale would allow for courts to", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "judicially amend any statutory scheme by “insert[ing] words not used,” Mills, 367 N.C. at", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "623, so long as the court’s preferred term is “[c]onsistent with the statute’s purpose.” Courts", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "are then no longer interpreting the law but impermissibly legislating from the bench. See", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "N.C. Const. art. I, § 6 (“[t]he legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other[.]”); see also The", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "Federalist No. 47 (James Madison) (“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive,", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "tyranny.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "Opinion of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "-9-", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Appeals therefore erred in concluding the one-year contractual limitation in this case", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "is unenforceable.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "IV. Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "The public policy of this State, including statutes of limitations and", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "prohibitions on decreasing limitations periods by contract, is determined by the", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "legislature. The legislature has not prohibited downward adjustment of the", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "limitation period for UDTPA claims, and plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "provision is unreasonable. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "REVERSED.", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "-10-", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Justice EARLS dissenting.", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "The Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) declares certain", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "commercial practices unlawful and authorizes injured parties to bring civil actions to", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "enforce that prohibition. N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1.1, 75-16 (2025). The statute also provides", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "that “[a]ny civil action brought under this Chapter to enforce the provisions thereof", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "shall be barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues.”", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2 (2025).", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "The question presented is whether a generic contractual limitation clause", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "contained in a standard-form service agreement may shorten that express statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "limitations period and bar a claim brought under Chapter 75. The majority holds that", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "it does. The practical effect of that decision is to allow sophisticated parties to opt out", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "of state law.", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "The facts of this case illustrate the problem. After a water heater leak severely", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "damaged their home, plaintiffs Java and Jannifer Warren contacted their insurance", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "provider, which referred them to defendant Cielo Ventures to remediate the property.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "Cielo Ventures represented that the situation was urgent and required immediate", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "intervention, promising it would “bring in the cavalry.” After signing an", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "“Authorization to Perform Services and Direction of Payment” with Cielo Ventures,", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "the Warrens moved into a hotel, per Cielo Ventures’s instructions, while waiting for", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "Cielo Ventures to perform remediation. However, according to the complaint, Cielo", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Ventures failed to perform the promised remediation work. Instead, it directed its", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "-11-", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "efforts toward remediating a twenty-two-unit apartment building nearby which had", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "also suffered water damage, a perhaps more lucrative business opportunity, and", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "simply never informed the Warrens that it would not be performing the promised", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "services. Because the leaked water sat in the Warren’s empty home for weeks, mold", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "proliferated, and the condition of the home deteriorated to the point that the property", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "ultimately had to be demolished. The Warren’s insurance policy did not cover all the", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "costs of having their home rebuilt.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "The Warrens brought suit asserting a violation of the UDTPA. Cielo Ventures,", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "in turn, relied on a provision in its service contract stating that “[n]o action,", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "regardless of form, relating to the subject matter of this contract may be brought more", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "than one (1) year after the claiming party knew or should have known of the cause of", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "action.” The majority holds that this contractual clause shortened the statutory four-", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "year limitations period governing UDTPA claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "In my view, that interpretation rests on an unreasonable inference from the", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "statute’s silence. Nothing in Chapter 75 suggests that the legislature intended the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "limitations period governing this statutory cause of action to be displaced by a generic", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "private contract limitations period. On the contrary, the text, structure, and purpose", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "of the UDTPA indicate that the General Assembly created a distinct statutory remedy", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "designed to regulate unfair practices in the marketplace and provided its own", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "limitations period for enforcing that remedy.", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "Because the majority’s interpretation undermines the statutory scheme", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "-12-", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "enacted by the legislature and interprets the UDTPA in a manner that makes", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "consumers more vulnerable to unfair contract terms, I respectfully dissent.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "I. The UDTPA creates a statutory remedy that operates independently of", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "contractual rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Our task when interpreting a statute is to give effect to the General Assembly’s", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "intent. The starting point in that inquiry is the statutory text itself. When the", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "legislature has spoken clearly, courts apply the statute as written. E.g., Fearrington", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "v. City of Greenville, 386 N.C. 38, 52 (2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "At the same time, courts must interpret statutes in a manner consistent with", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "reason and common sense. We therefore avoid constructions that would produce", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "results the legislature could not reasonably have intended. As this Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "explained, “if a literal interpretation of a word or phrase’s plain meaning will lead to", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "‘absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control.’ ” State v. Rankin, 371", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "N.C. 885, 889 (2018) (quoting State v. Beck, 359 N.C. 611, 614 (2005)). Likewise, even", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "where a statute’s text appears clear, courts may reject a literal reading when it", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "produces consequences “so dangerous and absurd that they could never have been", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "intended.” Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 388 N.C. 109, 116 (2025) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "McCullough v. Scott, 182 N.C. 865, 876 (1921)).", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "These principles apply with particular force when a court is asked to draw an", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "inference from statutory silence. A statute necessarily leaves many things unsaid.", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "The absence of an express provision addressing a particular circumstance does not", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "-13-", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "license courts to adopt an interpretation that would undermine the statute’s evident", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "purpose. Cf. State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 432 (1975) (instructing that a statute", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "should not be construed in such a manner as to render it ineffective if another", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "construction will make it effective).", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "The majority nevertheless does exactly that here. Chapter 75 expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "establishes a four-year limitations period for civil actions brought under the statute.", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2. The statute does not say that private contracts may, or may not,", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "shorten that period. From this silence, however, the majority concludes that a generic", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "contractual limitation clause may override the more specific statutory limitations", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "period governing a UDTPA claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "That inference is difficult to reconcile with the basic principles of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "interpretation described above. Courts do not normally interpret statutory silence to", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "produce results that are inconsistent with the statute’s purpose and weaken the", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "operation of the statute itself. See Rankin, 371 N.C. at 889; Jackson, 388 N.C. at 116.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "Yet the rule adopted by the majority permits private contracts to narrow the time", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "within which the statutory remedy created by the General Assembly may be invoked.", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "Understanding the nature of a UDTPA claim is essential to resolving the", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "question before us. The Warrens do not seek merely to enforce the terms of their", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "contract with Cielo Ventures. Instead, they assert a cause of action created by the", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "General Assembly through the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "The UDTPA declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "-14-", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a). The statute further authorizes any person injured by such", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "conduct to bring a civil action and mandates treble damages upon proof of a violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "N.C.G.S. § 75-16. Through this statutory framework, the General Assembly created", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "a cause of action designed not merely to remedy private contractual disputes but also", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "to regulate unfair practices in the marketplace.", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "Importantly, a claim under the UDTPA exists independently of traditional", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "contract and tort remedies. “[I]t is well-recognized that actions for unfair or deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "trade practices are distinct from actions for breach of contract.” Boyd v. Drum, 129", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "N.C. App. 586, 593 (1998), aff’d per curiam, 350 N.C. 90 (1999). Indeed, the statute is", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "designed to apply in situations where contractual remedies would be inadequate or", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "unavailable. The “[UDTPA] was needed because common law remedies” such as", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "“[t]ort actions” for fraud and deceit and contract actions for “breach of express [or]", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "implied warranties, . . . [or] recision or restitution,” had heavy burdens of proof and", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "evidentiary hurdles, and thus “had proved often ineffective” to protect “aggrieved", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "consumers.” Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 543–44 (1981). As the Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "puts it, a UDTPA action “is the creation of statute. It is, therefore, sui generis. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "neither wholly tortious nor wholly contractual in nature.” Bernard v. Cent. Carolina", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Truck Sales, Inc., 68 N.C. App. 228, 230, disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 751 (1984)", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "(cleaned up).", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "North Carolina courts have consistently recognized the breadth of the statute’s", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "-15-", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "reach. For example, this Court has explained that the UDTPA applies broadly to", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "business activities “in or affecting commerce.” Bhatti v. Buckland, 328 N.C. 240, 243", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "(1991). Consistent with that expansive language, courts have applied the statute in", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "a wide range of consumer and commercial contexts. The Court of Appeals has held,", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "for instance, that the rental of residential property falls within the statute’s scope", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "because such transactions constitute activity “in or affecting commerce.” Stolfo v.", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "Kernodle, 118 N.C. App. 580, 583 (1995).", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "Further, the Court of Appeals has expressly recognized that an action for", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "unfair or deceptive trade practices is “distinct” from other claims including breach-of-", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "contract and common-law-based claims and may proceed independently of those", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "claims. Page v. Lexington Ins. Co., 177 N.C. App. 246, 250–51 (2006). Put another", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "way, UDTPA claims are not collapsed into claims arising from a contract, including", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "for limitations purposes. Where a party brings both UDTPA claims and contract", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "claims, the Court of Appeals has applied UDTPA’s four-year limitations period to the", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "UDTPA claims and the contract limitations period to the contract claims. Id. at 251", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "(“[P]laintiffs’ UDTP claim was separate and distinct from plaintiffs’ claims on the", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "underlying insurance policy [a contract], and the UDTP claim is therefore governed", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.”). Cf. also Skinner v.", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "Preferred Credit, 172 N.C. App. 407, 414 (2005) (applying UDTPA’s four-year", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "limitations period to the UDTPA claim and the three-year limitations period to the", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "usury claim and holding plaintiffs’ claims were barred under both), aff’d on other", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "-16-", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "grounds, 361 N.C. 114 (2006). So parties may agree via contract to the scope of their", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "contract claims, but contract claims are distinct from UDTPA claims, including for", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "statute of limitations purposes.", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "Likewise, a plaintiff need not even be in contractual privity with the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "to pursue relief under Chapter 75. Hyde v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 123 N.C. App. 572, 584", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "(1996). And where the parties are in privity, proving breach of contract is usually not", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "enough to prove a UDTPA claim. E.g., Boyd, 129 N.C. App. at 593 (“A mere breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "under [UDTPA].” (cleaned up)). Instead, a UDTPA action is proved according to “the", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "facts of each case and the impact the practice has in the marketplace.” Marshall, 302", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "N.C. at 548. These decisions reflect the statute’s function as a mechanism for", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "regulating fair conduct in commerce rather than merely enforcing private", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "agreements.", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "Accordingly, courts have recognized UDTPA claims arising from conduct that", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "formally complied with a contract yet nevertheless deceived consumers or violated", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "public policy. For example, the Court of Appeals has held that a lender’s scheme", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "disguising usurious loans as “rebate” contracts constituted an unfair and deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "practice under Chapter 75, even though the transactions were structured as", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "contractual agreements. State ex rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc., 174 N.C. App. 630,", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "635–36 (2005). In such cases, the statute serves precisely the function the General", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "Assembly intended: providing a remedy where private contractual arrangements", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "-17-", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "operate in a manner that harms consumers or distorts fair competition. Similarly,", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "the Court of Appeals has declined to apply a contractual forum selection clause to a", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "UDTPA claim where doing so would defeat UDTPA’s protections for aggrieved North", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "Carolina consumers. Wall v. Automoney, Inc., 284 N.C. App. 514, 531 (2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "The statutory structure of Chapter 75 reinforces the conclusion that the", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "limitations period governing UDTPA claims is fixed by the legislature rather than by", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "private agreement. The UDTPA does more than prohibit certain practices in", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "commerce. It also establishes a comprehensive enforcement scheme. Section 75-16", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "authorizes injured parties to bring civil actions to enforce the statute and mandates", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "treble damages upon proof of a violation. N.C.G.S. § 75-16. Other provisions authorize", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "the Attorney General to independently prosecute violations in the name of the State.", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "N.C.G.S. § 75-15 (2025). Among this comprehensive enforcement scheme, the General", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "Assembly prescribed the limitations period governing such actions: “Any civil action", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "brought under this Chapter . . . shall be barred unless commenced within four years", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "after the cause of action accrues.” N.C.G.S. § 75-16.2.", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "By enacting § 75-16.2, the legislature made a deliberate determination", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "regarding the time within which claims under Chapter 75 may be brought. When the", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "General Assembly creates a statutory cause of action and specifies the period within", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "which it may be enforced, that determination reflects the legislature’s judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "concerning how the statutory remedy should operate. See Rankin, 371 N.C. at 896", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "(“It is always presumed that the legislature acted with care and deliberation and with", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "-18-", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "full knowledge of prior and existing law.” (cleaned up)). It is plainly the prerogative", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "of the General Assembly as our state’s “policy-making agency” to “supplant[ ]” a", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "“common law rule and [thereby adopt its new rule as] the public policy of the State in", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "respect to that particular matter.” Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 169 (2004)", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "(quoting McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479, 483 (1956)). The General Assembly", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "could reasonably determine that contract and tort actions could not alone safeguard", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "fair marketplace competition and create a new remedial scheme with that policy goal", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "in mind.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "In summary, because the UDTPA regulates marketplace conduct rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "merely contractual obligations, the statute’s protections cannot be reduced to the", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "terms of the parties’ agreement. A contract may define the rights and obligations", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "between the parties, but it does not necessarily determine whether a business", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "practice violates Chapter 75. The statutory prohibition applies independently of the", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "parties’ private arrangements.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "This distinction is critical here. The cause of action asserted by the Warrens", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "does not arise from Cielo Ventures’s contract alone. It arises from a statute enacted", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "to regulate unfair practices in commerce and to provide injured parties with a means", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "of enforcing that prohibition. The legislature expressly prescribed the applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "statute of limitations, and that four-year period is what should govern.", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "II. The majority’s interpretation rests on an unreasonable inference from", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "statutory silence.", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "The majority nevertheless concludes that a contractual limitation clause may", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "-19-", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "shorten the UDTPA’s express limitation period. In essence, the majority reasons that", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "the legislature knew parties could contract out of the statute of limitations for a", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "statutory action, so we should infer from the legislature’s silence that it intended that", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "result. But none of the cases the majority cites support that this is what the", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "legislature “knew.” Rather, the majority cites myriad cases affirming a different", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "proposition: that contracts may provide reasonable limitation periods for contract", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "actions––that is, actions arising out of the contract to enforce rights fixed by the", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "contract itself. See Muse v. London Assurance Corp., 108 N.C. 240, 241–42 (1891)", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "(action on insurance policy contract was bound by policy’s one-year limitation period", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "because “the rights of the parties in such cases are fixed by the contract” (cleaned", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "up)); Alford v. Textile Ins. Co., 248 N.C. 224, 226 (1958) (action on insurance policy);", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "Ord. of United Com. Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 588–89, 599 (1947)", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "(action on fraternal benefit certificate, an insurance policy); Horne-Wilson, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "Nat’l Sur. Co., 202 N.C. 73, 73–74 (1932) (action on surety bond tied to contract for", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "services). None of these cases stand for the proposition that contracts can curb", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "statutory protections. The majority’s reasoning thus merely restates the point it is", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "trying to prove.", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Of course, where a right arises from contract, the contract can reasonably limit", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "the scope of the right. That is a different matter from whether a contract can limit", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "the scope of rights arising from statute––let alone whether the legislature would have", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "understood as much when it enacted UDTPA. The majority’s conclusion that private", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "-20-", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "agreements can cabin a legislatively created statutory remedy is as is inconsistent", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "with legislative intent as it is unsupported by precedent.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "We have long recognized limits on the ability of private parties to waive", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "statutory protections enacted for public purposes. Although individuals may waive", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "many rights that exist for their personal benefit, courts have been reluctant to enforce", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "agreements that undermine statutory protections designed to address broader public", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "concerns. As this Court has explained, rights may be waived “unless forbidden by law", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "or public policy.” Clement v. Clement, 230 N.C. 636, 639 (1949).", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "More recently, this Court reiterated that principle when considering whether", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "a borrower could waive the protections of North Carolina’s anti-deficiency statute", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "through a guaranty agreement. We concluded that such a waiver would violate public", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "policy because the statute was enacted to address specific instances of the public’s", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "vulnerability to lender overreach. High Point Bank & Tr. Co. v. Highmark Props.,", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "LLC, 368 N.C. 301, 308 (2015). In that circumstance, even though the statute was", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "silent on whether guaranty agreements could waive the statute’s protections,", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "permitting contractual waiver would have undermined the statutory protection the", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "legislature intended to provide. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "The same concern arises here. Chapter 75 represents the General Assembly’s", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "effort to regulate unfair practices in commerce and to provide injured parties with an", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "effective means of enforcing that prohibition. Allowing private form contracts to", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "shorten the limitations period governing UDTPA claims would permit businesses to", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "-21-", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "unilaterally narrow the availability of the statutory remedy—precisely the sort of", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "arrangements that the statute was designed, in part, to police.", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "Indeed, the implications of the majority’s rule extend beyond the limitations", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "period itself. If statutory silence permits private contracts to alter the time within", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "which a UDTPA claim may be brought, it is difficult to see why other features of the", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "statutory enforcement scheme could not likewise be restricted by contract. Yet the", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "statute’s structure suggests the opposite: the General Assembly established the cause", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "of action, defined the available remedies, and specified the period within which those", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "remedies may be pursued, in part because contract remedies alone were insufficient.", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "Taking the majority’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, the majority appears", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "to demand that if the General Assembly enacts a statute that will affect commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "dealings that are also governed by contract, the General Assembly must limit the", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "operation of contracts explicitly. But it is unclear what principle of statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "interpretation gives this Court the right to compel the General Assembly to use", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "particular words when that body endeavors to protect consumers and regulate the", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "marketplace. Such a judicially imposed “magic words” requirement seems", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "inconsistent with our obligation to merely give effect to the legislature’s intent,", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "however expressed.1", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "1 The majority states that the approach to statutory interpretation advanced here", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "amounts to “impermissibly legislating from the bench,” citing the Federalist Papers. See", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "majority supra n.3. It is hardly tyranny on the order of the eighteenth-century British", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "monarchy to conclude that when the legislature created a cause of action and said what the", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "limitation period was, it did not necessarily assume parties could just opt out. The majority", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "-22-", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "In short, the legislature created the cause of action and determined that it may", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "be brought within four years. Absent some indication that the General Assembly", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "intended private contracts to alter that determination, courts should apply the", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "statute as written.", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "III. This case does not involve an express agreement to limit statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "UDTPA claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "Finally, even if some contracts could limit a UDTPA statute of limitations", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "period, it is unreasonable to conclude that this one in particular did so. The", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "contractual provision at issue appears in Cielo Ventures’s standard service", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "agreement and states that “[n]o action, regardless of form, relating to the subject", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "matter of this contract may be brought more than one (1) year after the claiming", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "party knew or should have known of the cause of action.” The majority interprets this", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "general language as a specific decision to shorten the statutory limitations period", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "governing the Warrens’ claim under Chapter 75. But in my view, the language of this", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "contract clause does not clearly demonstrate an intent to limit statutory claims under", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "the UDTPA. The provision refers generally to actions “relating to the subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "tellingly does not respond to the point that the legislature may have reasonably assumed that", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "there is a difference between a contract limiting a contract right, and a contract limiting a", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "statutory right.", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "Perhaps the majority is intent on collapsing UDTPA actions into contract actions here", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "because it believes that that the Warrens only adduced enough evidence at summary", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "judgment of a time-barred breach of contract claim, not an unfair or deceptive commercial", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "practices claim. There may be merit to that view, but that is not the issue presented on", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "appeal. By casting its decision in the form of sweeping assertions about the right to contract,", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "the majority torpedos a statute based on words not in the statute, a troubling result for a", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "Court that styles itself as textualist.", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "-23-", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "of this contract,” in a provision explaining limitations on “[a]ny claim by Client for", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "faulty performance, for nonperformance or breach under this Contract.” But a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "under Chapter 75 does not arise from the contract itself. As explained earlier, the", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "statute regulates unfair or deceptive practices in commerce and imposes duties that", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "exist independently of the parties’ contractual obligations.", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "At most, the clause reflects an agreement about the time for bringing contract", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "claims. Interpreting such general language to curtail the statutory limitation period", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "governing UDTPA claims extends the provision well beyond its ordinary meaning. In", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "effect, the majority recasts a narrow contractual limitation clause as a broad", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "restriction on the availability of a statutory remedy created by the General Assembly.", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "This appeal therefore does not require us to decide whether parties might ever", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "expressly agree to limit statutory claims in some other context. This is not a case", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "involving sophisticated parties who expressly negotiated the scope of their statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "remedies. The limitation clause at issue here appears in a standard-form service", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "agreement presented to homeowners confronting an urgent and unexpected loss", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "where their insurer recommended the service provider. The record does not suggest", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "that the parties bargained specifically over the availability of statutory remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "under Chapter 75, much less that they intended to curtail those remedies specifically.", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "Perhaps a different case—one involving sophisticated commercial actors who", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "clearly and expressly agreed to limit the availability of statutory claims—might", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "present a closer question. But that is not the case before us. Here, the Court permits", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "WARREN V. CIELO VENTURES, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Earls, J., dissenting", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "-24-", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "a generic contractual provision to shorten the limitations period governing a", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "statutory cause of action created by the General Assembly, effectively allowing", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "general language in a form contract to evade consumer protections against general", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "language in form contracts. Because I would not interpret Chapter 75 to allow that", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "result, I respectfully dissent.", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "Justice RIGGS joins in this dissenting opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_584" } ], "word_count": 6184, "cites": [ "331 U.S. 586" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "3a85022b6e4178f07a87a17d16a9afd54729e7dccb465611f80c56f97f41a528", "source_url": "https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=45756", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T13:35:11.455+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "3a85022b6e4178f07a87a17d16a9afd54729e7dccb465611f80c56f97f41a528", "recomputed_sha256": "3a85022b6e4178f07a87a17d16a9afd54729e7dccb465611f80c56f97f41a528", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-09T12:48:26.669Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:0d3f1400adc12e5ba94dda4eb8dccc49040a5de9985e0a8c9e894fea09984d04", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "expires": "2026-10-10T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T09:23:08", "content_hash": "sha256:0d3f1400adc12e5ba94dda4eb8dccc49040a5de9985e0a8c9e894fea09984d04", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-09T13:48:26.832Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:nc-203pa24-2026-03-20" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }