Horn v. Protective Life Insurance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
The first and principal question debated in the briefs and on oral argument is directed to the motion to nonsuit. Defendant asserts the court’s ruling was erroneous for'two reasons:
First, plaintiff alleged, and defendant denied, that proof of loss required by the policy had been given. Plaintiff must establish compliance with policy provisions to recover, and proof of loss is a condition precedent. If this case had been tried on the theory that plaintiff had not filed proof of loss, as required by the policy, we would feel compelled to reverse for that reason; but it is manifest from the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Penn v. Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Penn v. Standard Life & Accidental InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Lucas v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Brown v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1934
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Williams v. Pilot Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Arthurs v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Rice v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Horn v. Protective Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Barnes v. Home Beneficial Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.