Legal Opinion

Brantley v. Starling

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 17, 1993No. 927SC354PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

COZORT, Judge.

The question presented by the case below is whether the trial court erred in finding that defendant insurance company, the underin-sured motorist coverage carrier, was not entitled to reduce its coverage by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits which the same company paid to plaintiff. Defendant insurance company, as an unnamed defendant, appeals. We reverse.

On 5 October 1989, plaintiff Paul Brantley, an employee of S.K. Bowling, Inc., (S.K. Bowling) was injured while riding as a passenger in a truck titled individually in the name of Mr. Samuel King Bowling. Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Manning v. FletcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Manning v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Manning v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hieb v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API