Legal Opinion

Woodard v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 18, 1979No. 7930SC257PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motions for a directed verdict and for judgment NOV. Defendant contends that these motions should have been granted because: (1) The Woodards, at trial, never proved their employee was negligent, and therefore the Woodards’ liability to Kimsey and defendant’s derivative liability to reimburse the Woodards was never established; and (2) as a matter of law, damage to Kimsey’s building arose out of a “completed operations hazard” which was excluded from coverage under the terms of the insurance policy. We…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. ChantosSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Daniel v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Goodwin v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  2. Shelter Mutual Insurance v. GardnerDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1995
  3. Tart v. American National Fire Insurance Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Woodard v. NC FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. CO.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Deason v. J. King Harrison Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API