An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA01-1095-02
    

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 20 April 2004

THE ESTATE OF HEATHER
MARIE SIZEMORE, ALAN RAY
SIZEMORE, Administrator,
            Plaintiff,

v .                         Catawba County
                            No. 00 CVS 1596
DENNIS PAUL KIMBLETON; FRYE
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
TENET HEALTHSYSTEM CM, INC.;
TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICAL,
INC.; TENET PHYSICIAN SERVICES-
FRYE REGIONAL, INC.; TENET
PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF THE
SOUTHEAST, INC.; AMISUB OF
NORTH CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a FRYE
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER;
STERLING MIAMI, INC. f/k/a
STERLING HEALTH CARE GROUP,
INC.; FPA MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; FPA
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF
FLORIDA, INC.; PHYAMERICA
PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC.;
PHYAMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
INC.; PHYAMERICA EMERGENCY
SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
P.A.; PHYAMERICA PHYSICIAN
NETWORKS, INC.; PHYAMERICA
PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF THE
SOUTHEAST, INC.; CATAWBA
COUNTY; CATAWBA EMERGENCY
SERVICES; and CATAWBA COUNTY
EMS,
            Defendants.

    Appeal by defendant Catawba County from order entered 1 June 2000 by Judge Forrest Donald Bridges in Catawba County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 February 2004.

    Faison & Gillespie, by O. William Faison, John W. Jensen and Evett N. Brown, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, P. L. L. C., by Burley B. Mitchell, Tyrus V. Dahl, Jr. and Oliver M. Read, IV, for defendant-appellant.

    PER CURIAM.

    This Court originally heard this appeal on 16 May 2002 and reversed an order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Estate of Sizemore v. Kimbleton, 150 N.C. App. 717, 565 S.E.2d 112 (2002)(unpublished). On 5 February 2004, the Supreme Court of North Carolina granted plaintiff's petition for discretionary review and remanded the matter to this Court. The disputed insurance policy here contains language identical to that interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dawes v. Nash Cty., 357 N.C. 442, 584 S.E.2d 760 (2003). For the reasons stated in Dawes, we affirm the trial court's denial of defendant Catawba County's motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Affirmed and remanded.
    Panel consisting of:
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judges WYNN and TIMMONS-GOODSON.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***