MacClure v. Accident & Casualty Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
Preliminarily we should observe that under the definition of “insured” in the above quoted clause of the policy, Spence, operator of the LaSalle automobile by permission of the owner, is as much entitled to the benefit of the insurance as the “named insured,” Delph, and stands in the same relation to the plaintiff in the procedure for ultimate recovery.
The defense that the insurer had not been notified of the accident or of the institution of the suit against him is not tenable. Delph had promptly notified agents of the Company of the occurrence and they, together with claim adjuster DeVault,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Spruill v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Dunn v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
- Conroy v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Francis v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- Cowell v. Employers Indemnity Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Great American Insurance v. C. G. Tate Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Wells v. ClaytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Winkler v. Appalachian Amusement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Muncie v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Tolbert v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.