Legal Opinion

Bowser v. Williams

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1992No. 911SC797PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Both Continental and Mann have appealed from the judgment below. We address Continental’s appeal first.

Continental’s Appeal

Continental argues that the trial court erred by concluding that its policy provided plaintiff $750,000 UIM coverage. We disagree.

Continental concedes in its statement of facts contained in its brief as appellant that it provided UM coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident on the truck that Mr. Bowser was driving. Continental then states that its “policy was not issued with underinsured motorist coverage.” This statement does not withstand…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. ChantosSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Sproles v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Harris v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  4. Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  5. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hlasnick v. Federated Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Continental InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  3. Sitzman v. Government Employees Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  4. McMillian v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  5. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. v. Guideone Specialty InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2022

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

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

Powered by the Exa API