Legal Opinion

Womack v. Federal Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 2, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

Tbe evidence shows, and the jury found, tbat plaintiff was engaged in no more hazardous undertaking at tbe time of bis injury than was imposed by bis duties as superintendent when tbe policy was issued. Hoffman v. Ins. Co., 127 N. C., 337, 37 S. E., 466. In the face of this showing and finding, it would seem that plaintiff is entitled to recover tbe full amount provided for tbe loss of a band, as stipulated in tbe policy, and not according to tbe schedule of diminished liability. Smith v. Ins. Co., 179 N. C., 489, 102 S. E., 887. There was no change to a more hazardous occupation as…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Rhode Island InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. Gazzam v. German Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Cottingham v. Maryland Motor Car InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Miller v. Missouri State Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  5. Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1961
  2. Holcomb v. United States Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Bryan v. Travelers InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Federal Life Insurance v. NicholsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API