Legal Opinion

Pleasant v. Motors Insurance Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1971No. 111PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRANCH, Justice.

Appellant contends that the intentional destruction of the automobile by the son of the named insured in the policy was not a “direct and accidental loss” as required by the terms of the policy.

This Court defined the word “accident” in connection with a suit seeking recovery under an accidental death policy which provided for “direct and accidental loss” in the case of Clay v. Insurance Co., 174 N.C. 642, 94 S.E. 289, as follows:

“ . . . (I)n case of accident insurance, as expressed in the general terms' of this policy, the word ‘accident’ should receive its ordinary and…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Lovelace v. Travelers' Protective Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  3. Firemen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aponaug Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1945
  4. Mast v. Sapp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. Smith v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Register v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Federated American Insurance v. StrongWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Hosey v. Seibels Bruce Group, S.C. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1978
  4. National Mortgage Corp. v. American Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. First American Title Ins. Co. v. KesslerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API