East v. Reserve Insurance Company
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, Judge.
Plaintiff seeks to recover under the “Hit-and-Run Automobile” provision of his policy which provides in pertinent part as follows: “The term ‘hit-and-run automobile’ means an automobile, other than one in which an insured is a passenger, which causes an accident resulting in bodily injury to an insured, arising out of physical contact of such vehicle with the insured or with a vehicle which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident, * * (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff does not deny that it is incumbent on him to show that there was physical contact between the motorcycle…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Pridgen v. HughesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
- Griffith v. William Penn Broadcasting Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
3Cited by5 opinions
- McNeil v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Petteway v. South Carolina InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Moore v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- Moore v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- Prouse v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012