Daniel v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSea well, J.
After accepting liability in more general terms, the policy seeks to restrict the coverage to injuries sustained during the progress of the work — declining liability after “assured’s work is completed.” The controversy here is over the proper definition of the word “completed” as used in the policy to mark the time when liability ceases.
The majority of the Court are of the opinion that the charge to the jury at the trial goes too far, since the jury may have been led to infer that the job could never in fact and in law be considered as completed until an ideal state of perfection had been…
2Cited by28 opinions
- William H. Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1968
- Carolina Beach Fishing Pier, Inc. v. Town of Carolina BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Heyward v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1955
- Nielson v. Travelers Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1959
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Riefolo Construction Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.