Legal Opinion

East v. Reserve Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 13, 1973No. 7321SC182PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Pridgen v. HughesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Griffith v. William Penn Broadcasting Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McNeil v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  2. Petteway v. South Carolina InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Moore v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  4. Moore v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  5. Prouse v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API