Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 460

• Citation: 266 N.C. 309,145 S.E.2d 845
• Decision Date: 14 January 1966
• Docket Number: No. 460,460
• Parties: Claytie C. ANDERSON, Individually, and Claytie C. Anderson, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl Edward Anderson, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Original Defendant, and National Grange Mutal Insurance Company, Additional Party Defendant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

Page 845

145 S.E.2d 845

266 N.C. 309

Claytie C. ANDERSON, Individually, and Claytie C. Anderson,

Administratrix of the Estate of Carl Edward

Anderson, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Original Defendant, and National Grange Mutal Insurance Company, Additional Party Defendant.

No. 460.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 14, 1966.

Elledge & Mast, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellant.

Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by H. Grady Barnhill, Jr., Winston-Salem, for defendant appellee.

LAKE, Justice.

The judgment of the court below was clearly correct if the benefits to which the plaintiff was entitled under the National Grange policy constituted 'valid and collectible automobile medical payments insurance.' They obviously did constitute such insurance unless they are removed from that category by the circumstance that, by the terms of the policy, upon payment of such benefits to the plaintiff, National Grange would be subrogated, to that extent, to her rights against the negligent driver.

The plaintiff in her brief contends that the National Grange policy did not provide 'other valid and collectible' automobile medical payments insurance, because the coverage it provided was not as valuable as that provided in the Allstate policy since the Allstate policy did not contain a subrogation provision. That is, under the Allstate policy, had there been no medical payments clause in the National Grange policy at all, the plaintiff could have collected the full funeral expense from Allstate and could also have collected the same expense as part of her damages against the negligent driver. She cites no authority in support of her proposition that the provision in the Allstate policy must be construed to mean other medical payments insurance of the type provided in the Allstate policy. We have found no authority supporting that proposition.

It is, of course, true that ambiguous provisions in an insurance policy are construed most favorably to the insured and strictly against the company since the company wrote the policy. Skillman v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 258 N.C. 1, 127 S.E.2d 789; Barker v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 397, 85 S.E.2d 305; Johnson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 234 N.C. 25, 65 S.E.2d 347, 29 A.L.R.2d 507. However, the court may not rewrite the policy under the guise of interpreting it so as to enlarge the coverage afforded thereby. 'Insurance contracts will be construed according to the meaning of the terms which the parties have used and unless such terms are ambiguous, they will be interpreted according to their usual, ordinary, and commonly accepted meaning.' Johnson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supra.

In her brief the plaintiff says:

'The heart of the contract between the defendant, Allstate, and the decedent, Anderson, was their intention to provide medical and funeral expense coverage to Mr. Anderson, regardless of whether or not he could recover against a third party tort feasor or not.'

This is...