Legal Opinion

Boyd v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1993No. 9120SC1216PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

I

Nationwide first contends that the trial court erred by holding that its business auto policy provided coverage for punitive damages. We disagree.

This issue is controlled by Collins and Aikman Corp. v. The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 106 N.C. App. 357, 416 S.E.2d 591 (1992). In Collins, the insurance contract in issue provided:

The company will pay on behalf of the insured ultimate net loss in excess of the total applicable limit ... of underlying insurance . . . because of bodily injury, personal injury, property damage or advertising injury to which this insurance…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re the Appeal From the Civil PenaltySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Koufman v. KoufmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Mazza v. Medical Mut. Ins. Co. of NCSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  4. COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. AinsworthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  2. New South Insurance v. KiddCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. State v. EggertCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API