Smith v. King
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Judge.
In North Carolina, “[i]t has long been established that a third party, for whose benefit a contract has been made, may maintain an action for breach of that contract.” Equipment Co. v. Smith, 292 N.C. 592, 595, 234 S.E. 2d 599, 601 (1977). Several cases have approved application of a third-party beneficiary analysis to allow action by a bailor against a bailee’s insurance company. See Distributing Co. v. Insurance Co., 214 N.C. 596, 200 S.E. 411 (1939); Ingram v. Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 632, 129 S.E. 2d 222 (1963); Annot., 64 A.L.R. 3d 1207 (1975). The North Carolina cases…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Interstate Equipment Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- Carolina Transportation & Distributing Co. v. American Alliance InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Ingram v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Hall v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marshburn v. AssociatEd Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Lavender v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006