Legal Opinion

Dayal v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 6, 1984No. 8314SC1244PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

The policy of insurance on which plaintiff sued contained an exclusion “for treatment of bodily injuries arising from or in the course of any employment.” The trial court in rendering judgment for defendant, concluded that the accident which caused plaintiff Manjit Dayal’s injuries did not “arise from” Dayal’s employment, but did occur “in the course” of such employment. We disagree, and therefore reverse.

The identical exclusionary language relied on by defendant has come before this court once before, where we ruled that the phrase “arising from or in the course of’ employment…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Woods v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Gallimore v. Marilyn's ShoesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Stevenson v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Harless v. FlynnCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Rewis v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Parsons v. Pantry, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  2. Gupton v. Builders TransportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Willey v. Williamson ProduceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  4. Allmon v. Alcatel, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  5. Billy L. Vance v. Pilot Life Insurance Company, Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987

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