Urey v. Southern Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Per curiam
Plaintiff contends .that he had paid the premium in full and that the policy was in force at the time of the fire and that he had no notice that the defendant had attempted to cancel the policy, and that he had not authorized the cancellation. There was some evidence to sustain these contentions.
The defendant admits that the policy of insurance was a standard fire insurance policy and issued’ in plaintiff’s name.
In Dawson v. Insurance Co., 192 N. C., at p. 315, 316, it is said: “It is expressly stipulated in each policy, as required by statute (1) that ‘this policy will be canceled at any…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- American Trust Co. v. Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Kendrick v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Roberta Manufacturing Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Page v. Life Insurance Co. of VirginiaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. LundCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
- Abrams v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- Ha v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2024
- Western Casualty & Surety Company v. LundCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956