Legal Opinion

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Hagler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1999No. COA98-505Published

1Opinion of the Court

HORTON, Judge.

On appeal, the Haglers argue that the exclusion in the Endorsement is void because it is in conflict with the statutes governing motor vehicle liability insurance. They contend that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3) and (b)(4) requires that, if a policy of insurance (1) offers liability coverage in excess of the minimum limits required by the Act, and (2) contains UM coverage, then the policy must also provide UIM coverage. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3) and (4) (Cum. Supp. 1997). According to the Haglers, the Endorsement included in their comprehensive insurance policy meets…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Krstich v. United Services Automobile Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991
  3. Piazza v. LittleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  4. Piazza v. LittleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API