Legal Opinion

Gardner v. Carolina Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 19, 1949PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

Tbe contract between plaintiff and defendant is in tbe standard form prescribed by statute. G.S. 58-177. Tbe rights and liabilities of both parties under tbe policy must be ascertained and determined in accord witb its terms. Zibelin v. Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 567, and cases cited.

Under tbe terms of tbe policy tbe plaintiff was required to file witb defendant proof of loss witbin sixty days after tbe fire occurred, and tbe policy provides that unless tbis proof is filed witbin tbe prescribed period no suit may be maintained on tbe policy. Tatham v. Ins. Co., 181 N.C. 434, 107 S.E. 450;…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gerringer v. North Carolina Home InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  2. Gorham v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. Tatham v. Liverpool, London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. Felts v. Shenandoah Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Muncie v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Boyd v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Davenport v. Travelers Indemnity CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Hanks v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Stout v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1962

8 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