Legal Opinion

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. W. P. Rose Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 29, 1973No. 738DC525PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Insured’s counsel took the position that the claim against the Tort-feasor could not be split and maintained suit for the total damages. His view is supported by Insurance Co. v. Sheek, 272 N.C. 484, 158 S.E. 2d 635. There the court said: “When the insurance pays only a part of the loss, the insured must bring the suit for the entire loss in his own name. . . . The sole right to sue in this case was in Ogbum, the insured whose property was negligently damaged.” Similarly, in Phillips v. Alston, 257 N.C. 255, 125 S.E. 2d 580, the court said:

“When the sum paid is only partial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burgess v. TrevathanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Powell v. . Water Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. Phillips v. AlstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance v. SheekSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Garrity v. Rural Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Rimes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Thiringer v. American Motors InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Ortiz v. Great Southern Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Powell v. Blue Cross and Blue ShieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1990

24 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