Legal Opinion

Whitmire v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 12, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStagy, C. J.

The defendant has done no more than it had a right to do under the terms of its contract. In recognition of this fact, the plaintiff has bottomed his alleged cause of action on fraud and deceit, and seeks to recover in tort, but a careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that it is barren of evidence sufficient to carry the ease to the jury on the theory advanced by the plaintiff.

It appears from the testimony that under date of 1 September, 1931, the plaintiff received a letter' from the defendant advising him that continuance of the insurance was contingent on not less…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Starkweather v. . GravelySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Young v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Grant v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. West v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  4. Perry v. . Assurance SocietySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Perry v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API