Rice v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Per curiam
Defendant’s assignments of error present these questions:
1. Did the court err in overruling defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings?
2. Was there evidence on which the court could conclude that the Pontiac was “an uninsured motor vehicle” as that phrase is defined in the policy issued plaintiff?
The answer to the first question is “No.” The complaint specifically alleges that the Pontiac was an uninsured motor vehicle as this phase is defined in plaintiff’s policy. The conditional assertion in the reply that if, in fact, Thornton was insured as alleged by defendant the insurance was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hill v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
- Levy v. American Automobile InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1961
- Hawley v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Fallins v. Durham Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Hardin v. American Mutual Fire Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Buckeye Union Insurance v. PriceOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. MatlockTexas Supreme Court · 1970
- Katz v. American Motorist InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Hodges v. Canal Insurance CompanyMississippi Supreme Court · 1969
- Brown v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.