Bindinglaw

NC · jury_instructions

N.C.P.I.—Civil 813.30

TRADE REGULATION - VIOLATION - ISSUE OF TYING BETWEEN LENDER AND INSURER.

activein force · 1995-04-01 – presentas-observed

The (state number) issue reads:

"Did the defendant require (name borrower) to deal with a

particular insurer as part of a secured transaction?"

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, the

following two things:

First, that the defendant2 was engaged in lending money on a

secured basis. Money is loaned on a secured basis when

[property is sold on credit and payment is secured by a purchase

money [mortgage] [deed of trust] [security agreement]]

[a loan is made and repayment is secured by a [mortgage] [deed of

trust] [security agreement]]

[an existing secured [credit] [loan] is refinanced, renewed or

extended].

Second, that the defendant directly or indirectly [required] [imposed

as a precondition to the secured transaction] that (name borrower)

[negotiate] [procure] [(describe other method of obtaining)] a [policy]

[renewal] [extension] of insurance through a particular [insurance

company] [agent] [broker] [(identify other insurer)] [specified] [(describe

other method of designation)] by the defendant. It is not necessary that

the secured transaction be completed.

A lender may require a borrower to obtain insurance as part of a

secured transaction, and the lender may approve or disapprove of an

insurer on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis related to the

solvency of the insurer, and to the type and provisions of policy

coverage.3 A lender may not, however, require a borrower to [negotiate]

[procure] [(describe other means of obtaining)] insurance from a

particular insurer.

Finally, as to this issue on which the plaintiff has the burden of

proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the

defendant required (name borrower) to deal with a particular insurer as

part of a secured transaction, then it would be your duty to answer this

issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty

to answer this issue "No" in favor of the defendant.

History

N.C.P.I.—Civil 813.30 (April 1995). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-17. Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.

Provenance

Source
sog.unc.edu
Retrieved
2026-09-24
Edition
2026-09-24
Content hash
761a6ca99e50ebe674366ea341e90ec96aca0c82ced7490b68adb1177038eee7
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.