Legal Opinion
Thomasson v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided July 16, 1991No. 9017SC1003PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the term “collapse” used in paragraph 8 on page 5 of the insurance policy is ambiguous and accordingly whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff contends that the term is ambiguous while, the defendant argues that “collapse” is unambiguous and means “a falling or reduction to a flattened form or rubble.” On this record, we hold that the word “collapse” is ambiguous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant.
Plaintiff contends that the policy is ambiguous…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Woods v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Brown v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. RoyalSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Williams v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York v. MitchellCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Magwerks Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 2005
- Guyther v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- American Concept Insurance v. JonesDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1996
- Fantis Foods, Inc. v. North River Ins.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
- Rankin Ex Rel. Rankin v. Generali—U.S. BranchCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.