Hendricks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBextt, J.
In their brief, plaintiff’s counsel state the issue presented on this appeal as follows: “Under North Carolina uninsured motorist law applicable to a policy of uninsured motorist insurance issued in this State February 16, 1968, does the absence of physical contact by the vehicle operated by an insured under such policy with the vehicle of an unknown ‘hit-and-run’ motorist preclude recovery against the insurer for loss to the insured proximately resulting from the negligence of the unknown motorist?” Our answer is yes.
The policy definition of uninsured automobile incorporates the definition…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Moore v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company GroupSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Prosk v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1967
- Davis v. NC Granite CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Howell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Wright v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- United Services Automobile Ass'n AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Clark v. Regent Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AbramowiczSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978
- Simpson v. Farmers InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
- Soule v. Stuyvesant InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.