Legal Opinion

McNeil v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 17, 1987No. 8610SC821PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We agree.

In order to show that he is entitled to the benefits under the uninsured motorist endorsement, plaintiff must show that: (1) he is legally entitled to recover damages, (2) from the owner or oper ator of an uninsured automobile, (3) because of bodily injury, (4) caused by accident and (5) arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured automobile. Williams v. Insurance Co., 269 N.C. 235, 152 S.E. 2d 102 (1967).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3)(b) provides:

Where…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Williams v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. Hendricks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  3. East v. Reserve Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Andersen v. BaccusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
  2. Andersen v. BaccusCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  3. Hoffman v. Great American Alliance InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  4. Petteway v. South Carolina InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  5. Elchehimi v. Nationwide Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2005

10 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