City of Wilmington v. Pigott
| Decision Date | 18 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 825DC1194,825DC1194 |
| Citation | 64 N.C.App. 587,307 S.E.2d 857 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF WILMINGTON, v. Sheldon PIGOTT and wife, Janice Pigott, and The Travelers Insurance Company. |
Martin, Wessell & Owens by John C. Wessell, III, Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellee.
Franklin L. Block, Wilmington, for defendant-appellees.
Crossley & Johnson by Robert W. Johnson, Wilmington, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Travelers Insurance contends that the court erred in ordering it to provide coverage to the City of Wilmington in that there was no "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy. We agree. The trial court's order is reversed.
Section 2, Coverage C of the insurance policy in question provides in part:
The Company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which the insurance applies, caused by an occurrence ... (emphasis added).
The definition section of the policy provides that " 'occurrence' means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from a standpoint of the insured." (emphasis added).
From the facts at hand then, in order for there to have been an "occurrence," ordering the Pigotts to remove their two greenhouses must have constituted an "accident" which resulted in property damage "neither expected nor intended" by the City.
Both plaintiff and defendant rely on the case of Edwards v. Akion, 52 N.C.App. 688, 279 S.E.2d 894, aff'd, 304 N.C. 585, 284 S.E.2d 518 (1981). In that case a garbage collector in the City of Raleigh became involved in an argument with the plaintiff over whether he should remove a tire from her backyard. The City had in effect a liability insurance policy which defined "occurrence" in a manner which is essentially the same as the definition involved in the case at hand. This Court held in Edwards that an intentional assault committed by a city employee, when neither expected nor intended by the City, was an occurrence if committed within the scope of the employer's duties. 52 N.C.App. at 693, 279 S.E.2d at 897.
Defendant contends that the facts of Edwards are substantially different from those being considered here. We agree. In Edwards, it was clearly not expected or intended that the city employee assault residents along his route. His action did constitute an "accident" as defined by the policy.
The words "accident" and "acciden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Baecker
...an "accident." See City of Jasper v. Employers Ins. of Wausau , 987 F.2d 453, 458 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing City of Wilmington v. Pigott , 64 N.C.App. 587,307 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1983) ).19 We therefore turn to the Joneses' complaint to determine whether the alleged bodily injury here—emotional ......
-
Red Ball Leasing, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
...Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 37 Wash.App. 621, 681 P.2d 875, 878 (App.1984); City of Wilmington v. Pigott, 64 N.C.App. 587, 307 S.E.2d 857, 859 (App.1983), review denied, 310 N.C. 308, 312 S.E.2d 650 (1984); Ed. Winkler & Son, Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 51 Md.A......
-
Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
...potentially damaging events that can be anticipated are not "occurrences" within the meaning of the policy. In City of Wilmington v. Pigott, 64 N.C.App. 587, 307 S.E.2d 857 (1983), disc. rev. denied, 310 N.C. 308, 312 S.E.2d 650 (1984), a building inspector had demolished a building in the ......
-
McCoy v. Coker
...Pool, 130 N.C.App. 279, 285, 502 S.E.2d 626, 630 (1998); Wiggins v. Monroe, 73 N.C.App. 44, 326 S.E.2d 39 (1985); Wilmington v. Pigott, 64 N.C.App. 587, 307 S.E.2d 857 (1983); Edwards v. Akion, 52 N.C.App. 688, 691, 279 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1981). In all of the insurance policies in these cases......