Summary:
The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ January 21, 2026 decision in Eagles v. Integon Indemnity Corp. is not a bankruptcy case—but it reads like one written in bankruptcy ink. Anyone who followed In re Carter and In re Black will immediately recognize the terrain: catastrophic tort judgments, frustrated collection efforts, insurers accused of bad-faith failure to settle, and creative procedural maneuvering to get at insurance-related causes of action that otherwise sit beyond the creditor’s direct reach.
At bottom, Eagles is about who gets to sue whom, when, and from where. And like Carter and Black before it, the answer turns on standing, jurisdiction, and courts’ deep skepticism of procedural shortcuts designed to manufacture leverage rather than resolve insolvency.
The Holding (In Plain Terms)
After a $40 million drunk-driving verdict—the largest in North Carolina history—the judgment creditors hit the familiar wall: executions returned unsatisfied. They then sought appointment of receivers to pursue potential bad-faith and unfair-trade-practice claims against the insurer, Integon Indemnity, based on alleged failure to settle within policy limits.
Integon tried to seize the initiative by filing its own declaratory judgment action in Forsyth County—but did so in the name of the wrong corporate entity. That mistake proved fatal. Because the plaintiff lacked standing at the moment of filing, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction. Everything that followed in that action—motions, amendments, rulings—was a nullity. The Court of Appeals vacated the Forsyth County orders and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice .
Meanwhile, the receivers’ Nash County action survived intact. Venue was proper, there was no basis to stay in favor of a null action, and Integon’s attempts to force the case elsewhere failed.
Standing is not a technicality. It is jurisdictional. And you do not get to fix it later.
Why This Sounds So Familiar: Carter and Black Revisited:
If this all feels déjà vu, it should.
In In re Carter, the Middle District of North Carolina allowed an involuntary Chapter 7 to proceed over insurer objections, holding that insurers lacked standing to derail the case and that potential first-party bad-faith claims were legitimate estate assets worth preserving through bankruptcy . The bankruptcy court rejected the notion that using bankruptcy to marshal those claims was inherently abusive. (For more see: Bankr. M.D.N.C.: In re Carter- Standing in Involuntary Bankruptcy; Good Faith in Filing Involuntary Bankruptcy)
By contrast, In re Black landed on the opposite end of the spectrum. There, the court dismissed an involuntary petition as filed in bad faith, condemning it as a single-creditor collection device whose real purpose was to conscript a bankruptcy trustee into pursuing non-assignable insurance claims. The opinion is a cautionary tale—fact-intensive, ethics-laden, and deeply skeptical of “bankruptcy as leverage” .
Eagles sits squarely between those poles. Like Carter, it validates the idea that fiduciaries (there, a trustee; here, receivers) may pursue insurers for failure-to-settle claims when traditional collection tools fail. Like Black, it underscores that courts will not tolerate procedural gamesmanship—especially when jurisdiction is manufactured or assumed rather than properly invoked.
The Bankruptcy Subtext (Even Outside Bankruptcy):
What makes Eagles particularly interesting for bankruptcy practitioners is how closely it tracks bankruptcy doctrine without ever invoking the Code:
-
Standing is measured at filing. Just as in bankruptcy, you cannot amend your way into subject-matter jurisdiction.
-
Procedural consent doesn’t cure jurisdictional defects. Participation, delay, or strategic silence cannot validate a void action.
-
Fiduciary collection tools are scrutinized. Whether it’s a trustee under § 541 or a receiver under state law, courts look hard at motive and structure.
The case is also a reminder that receivership and bankruptcy are often competing—or complementary—routes to the same end: getting control of causes of action that belong to the debtor, not the creditor. Carter shows when bankruptcy can work. Black shows when it backfires. Eagles shows that even outside bankruptcy, the same fault lines apply.
Bottom Line:
Eagles v. Integon Indemnity Corp. reinforces three durable lessons:
-
Standing is foundational. Get it wrong at filing, and nothing else matters.
-
Courts will tolerate creative collection strategies—but not jurisdictional shortcuts.
-
The Carter–Black spectrum still governs. Whether in bankruptcy court or state court, the legitimacy of using fiduciary proceedings to reach insurer liability turns on good faith, proper parties, and procedural integrity.
For insurers, this is a warning shot: receivership-based bad-faith litigation is not going away. For judgment creditors, it’s a reminder that precision matters. And for bankruptcy lawyers, it’s further proof that our doctrines—standing, estate property, good faith—continue to shape outcomes well beyond the walls of the bankruptcy court.
With property attribution, please share this post.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments