Hill v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtCoNNOR, J.
The judgment of nonsuit, dismissing this action, is affirmed on the authority of Boozer v. Assurance Society, 206 N. C., 848, 175 S. E., 175, and Thigpen v. Insurance Co., 204 N. C., 551, 168 S. E., 845.
These cases are easily distinguished from Carter v. U. S., 49 Fed. (2d), 221. In the latter case there was evidence tending to show that while the policy was in force the insured accepted employment, and attempted to perform the duties of his employment, but was forced, because of his disability, to abandon his work. In the instant case, as well as in the cited cases, all the evidence showed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thigpen v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Boozer v. . Assurance SocietySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
3Cited by11 opinions
- Carter v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Medlin v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Jenkins v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Dullum v. Northern Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Ireland v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.