Legal Opinion

Sparrow v. American Fire & Casualty Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 2, 1955No. 307PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnsoN, J.

The plaintiff insists that he is entitled to recover under the comprehensive clause — “Coverage F,” which binds the insurance company to pay for “any direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile. . . .” However, to recover under this clause, it is noted that the loss or damage must be both “direct” and “accidental.” In the case at hand, the facts agreed establish no element of “accidental” loss or damage as that term is commonly understood and also well defined in our decisions. See Fletcher v. Security Life & Trust Co., 220 N.C. 148, 16 S.E. 2d 687; Kirkley v. Merrimack Mutual…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. Security Life & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. Kirkley v. Merrimack Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. U Drive It Auto Co. v. Atlantic Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Hanes Funeral Home, Inc. v. Dixie Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Town of Blowing Rock v. GregorieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. City of New Bern v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. Pleasant v. Motors Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  5. Ahoskie Production Credit Association v. WhedbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API