Legal Opinion

Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 21, 1993No. 9325SC97PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in allowing defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that summary judgment should be affirmed because the trial court correctly applied this Court’s decision in Watson. Defendants are correct.

Defendants submitted two affidavits in support of their motion for summary judgment. In the first affidavit, Universal’s underwriting manager stated that Universal’s policy issued to Far East Motors was a fleet policy that insured a multiple and changing number of motor vehicles used in Far East Motor’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sutton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Watson v. American National Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  4. Watson v. American National Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API