Ratliff v. Virginia Surety Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
The crux of appellant’s defense lies in the assumption that the motor and serial numbers endorsed- on the policy in the description of the White truck which was the subject of the insurance constitutes the whole and only description in the policy and that the truck is therefore unidentifiable. Obviously the defendant could not succeed in avoiding the policy if the subject of the insurance was identifiable, as between the insured and the insurer, by other descriptive insignia that may be resorted to in the policy of insurance, or which might in the case of an ambiguous description be shown by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- W. B. Coppersmith & Sons, Inc. v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Rudd v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Kostecki v. ZaffinaIllinois Supreme Court · 1943
- Fucaloro v. Standard Surety & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1938