Legal Opinion

Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 28, 1994No. 317A92PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

FRYE, Justice.

In this appeal based solely on the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company [hereinafter Farm Bureau] contends that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in determining that plaintiff is entitled to stack the underinsured motorist [hereinafter UIM] coverage in the policy issued to the named plaintiff (the Proctor policy) with the UIM coverage in the policy issued to Country Manor Antiques (inter-policy stacking); and, (2) in determining that plaintiff is entitled *535to stack the UIM coverages on the three vehicles insured in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sutton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  3. Lanning v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  4. Nesbit v. HowardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  5. Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. LankfordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API