Meiselman v. . Wicker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Tbe plaintiff grounds bis action on tbe principle announced in Elam v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 599, 109 S. E., 632, 18 A. L. R., 1210, that where an agent or broker undertakes to procure insurance for another, affording protection against a designated risk, tbe law imposes upon him tbe duty, in tbe exercise of reasonable care, to perform tbe obligation be has assumed, and within tbe amount of tbe proposed insurance, be may be held liable for tbe loss properly attributable to bis negligent default. See, also, Boney v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 563, 197 S. E., 122; Anno. 18 A. L. R., 1214; 8 Am.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Boney, Insurance Comr. v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hamacher v. TUMYOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Brown v. CooleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
- Mayo v. American Fire & Casualty CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Wiles v. MullinaxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Bank of French Broad, Inc. v. BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.