Gant v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. of Chattanooga, Tenn.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 385. |
| Parties | GANT v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. OF CHATTANOOGA, TENN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by Mrs. M. W. Gant against the Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tenn. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Under accident policy covering injuries by being "struck by moving automobile," insured struck by plank thrown by wheel of automobile could not recover.
This is an action to recover on an automobile accident policy of insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff on February 6 1923, and in force on January 10, 1927. The policy provides for the payment by defendant to plaintiff of a stipulated sum of money, as indemnity, for the loss of life or limb, of sight or time, by accidental means; the liability of defendant, however, is expressly limited by the language of the insuring clause in said policy.
By said policy, defendant insured plaintiff "against the effects resulting exclusively of all other causes from bodily injury sustained by the insured during the life of this policy solely through external, violent and accidental means (excluding suicide while sane or insane, or any attempt thereat while sane or insane) and which bodily injury is sustained by the insured as the result of operating, driving riding in or on, adjusting or cranking an automobile, or of being struck, run down or run over by a moving automobile, or caused by the burning or explosion of an automobile."
The evidence at the trial tended to show that on January 10 1927, plaintiff was struck by a plank which was thrown against her by the revolving wheel of an automobile; the plank struck the plaintiff on her leg, thereby causing her a serious bodily injury. At the time she was struck by the plank, plaintiff was standing in the yard of her home in Greensboro, N. C., at a distance of 12 or 15 feet in the rear of the automobile. No part of the automobile struck or came in contact with the person of plaintiff.
Plaintiff's husband had undertaken to drive the automobile from his garage to the street, in front of his home; the driveway running from the garage to the street, was covered with snow 15 to 17 inches deep. After the automobile had been driven from the garage, and while it was on the driveway, the rear wheels began to spin, because of the snow on the driveway. This caused the automobile to skid. To prevent the wheels from spinning and the automobile from skidding, plaintiff's husband directed a servant to place a plank under each of the rear wheels. When this had been done, the wheels passed over the planks underneath them. As the left rear wheel passed over the plank, which had been placed under it, the plank was hurled by the revolving wheel, with great force, toward the plaintiff, who at the time was standing in the rear of the automobile. This plank struck the plaintiff, and caused the injury to her leg.
Because of the injury, plaintiff was taken at once to a hospital where she remained for 35 days, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jolley v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
...policy, or maintainable equities should intervene. Penn v. Ins. Co., 158 N.C. 29, 73 S.E. 99, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 593; Gant v. Ins. Co., 197 N.C. 122, 147 S.E. 740. interpretation of incontestable clauses in insurance policies and the effect of such clauses upon other portions of the contra......
-
Ellis v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co
...language, the policy, as a rule, should not be construed to enlarge the liability beyond the plain meaning of its terms. Gant v. Ins. Co., 197 N.C. 122, 147 S.E. 740; McCain v. Ins. Co., 190 N.C. 549, 130 S.E. 186. In the case before us the 'omnibus coverage' clause extending the insurance ......
-
Brown v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee
... ... in 161 Tenn. 41, 28 S.W.2d 339, wherein it was held that an ... eye ... To the ... contrary, the ruling in Gant v. Provident Life & Acc ... Ins. Co., 197 N.C. 122, 147 ... ...
-
Conyard v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn.
... ... 386, Anderson v. Ins. Co., 197 N.C. 72, 147 ... S.E. 693, or Gant v. Ins ... ...