Legal Opinion

Honeycutt v. Walker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 6, 1995No. 94-645PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McGEE, Judge.

Defendant-appellant Farm Bureau assigns as error the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs entitling them to underinsured motorist coverage under the Farm Bureau policy.

Farm Bureau first argues the family-owned exclusion clause prevents plaintiffs from recovering for injuries sustained by Mr. Honeycutt while operating a motorcycle owned by him but not listed in the Farm Bureau policy. Our analysis begins with a determination of whether Michael Honeycutt is a member of an insured class entitled to UIM coverage under the Farm Bureau insurance policy. In Bass v.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Stanley v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. MabeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Bass v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  5. Nationwide Mutual Ins. v. MabeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. NC Farm Bureau, Mut. Ins. Co. v. BostCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  2. Burgess v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
  3. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. StamperCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. Iodice v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  5. NC FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. v. StamperCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996

2 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