Gardner v. Carolina Ins. Co. of Wilmington
| Decision Date | 19 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | 306 |
| Citation | 55 S.E.2d 694,230 N.C. 750 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. CAROLINA INS. CO. OF WILMINGTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Civil action to recover on a fire insurance policy.
Plaintiff being in possession of a tract of farm land under a bond for title, applied for and obtained from defendant a policy of insurance in the sum of $2,000 dated January 20, 1948 insuring him against loss on account of the damage or destruction by fire of the building located on the farm. On August 20, 1948 the building was completely destroyed by fire. On November 30, 1948 plaintiff instituted this action to recover on the policy.
Plaintiff does not allege that he filed proof of loss within sixty days after fire and offered no evidence tending to show that such proof was filed or that it was in any manner waived. Instead he testified:
In the trial below when plaintiff rested, the court, on motion of defendant, dismissed the action as in case of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.
A. A Powell, Shelby, and J. R. Davis, Kings Mountain, for plaintiff appellant.
D. Z. Newton, Shelby, for defendant appellee.
The contract between plaintiff and defendant is in the standard form prescribed by statute. G.S. s 58-177. The rights and liabilities of both parties under the policy must be ascertained and determined in accord with its terms. Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 567, 50 S.E.2d 290, and cases cited.
Under the terms of the policy the plaintiff was required to file with defendant proof of loss within sixty days after the fire occurred, and the policy provides that unless this proof is filed within the prescribed period no suit may be maintained on the policy. Tatham & Co. v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co., 181 N.C. 434, 107 S.E. 450; Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co., supra. Ordinarily, compliance with these provisions of the contract must be alleged in the complaint and proved at the hearing.
The defendant, of course, could waive the filing of proof of loss, and it is generally held that a denial of liability by the insurer, made during the period prescribed by the policy for the presentation of proof of loss, on grounds not relating to the proof, will be considered a waiver of the provision requiring such proof. Gerringer v. North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Carving Co. v. Manhattan Fire & M. Ins. Co.
...supplied.) In one of the later decisions dealing with the subject, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in Gardner v. Carolina Ins. Co. of Wilmington, 1949, 230 N.C. 750, 55 S.E.2d 694, 695, expressed the North Carolina rule as "The contract between plaintiff and defendant is in the standard f......
-
Stout v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company
...filing proofs expires there could be no waiver of its right to rely on the conditions of the policy. In Gardner v. Carolina Insurance Company, 230 N.C. 750, 751, 55 S.E.2d 694 (1949) the Court reasserted the principle that "a denial of liability by the insurer, made during the period prescr......
-
Smith v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...covered by the policy. E.g., Boyd v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co., 245 N.C. 503, 96 S.E.2d 703 (1957); Gardner v. Carolina Insurance Co., 230 N.C. 750, 55 S.E.2d 694 (1949); Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 567, 50 S.E.2d 290 (1948). The rationale for this potent......
-
Huggins v. Hartford Ins. Co., 85-144-CIV-4.
...provisions in the policy. Boyd v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Company, 245 N.C. 503, 96 S.E.2d 703 (1957); Gardner v. Carolina Insurance Company, 230 N.C. 750, 55 S.E.2d 694 (1949); Midkiff v. Insurance Company, supra; Black v. Insurance Company, supra. Cases which have arisen in other jur......