Legal Opinion
Hubbard v. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided February 5, 1975No. 7423DC936PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Defendant first contends the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff was entitled to recover $25.00 for the damage to the police monitor radio as a “personal effect.” The pertinent provision of the insurance policy is as follows:
“Coverage E (2) — Personal Effects(2) To pay for loss caused by fire or lightning to robes, wearing apparel and other personal effects which are the property of the named insured or a relative, while such effects are in or upon the owned automobile.”
While the trial judge denominated the police monitor radio as a “personal effect. . . under the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hicks v. AlbertsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Brooks v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Callicutt v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hillman v. United States Liability InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Hubbard v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Burne v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- DeBerry v. American Motorists InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Lee v. PaytonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.