Hall v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 233,233 |
| Citation | 233 N.C. 339,64 S.E.2d 160 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALL, v. HARLEYSVILLE MUT. CAS. CO. et al. |
W. H. McElwee, North Wilkesboro, and R. F. Crouse, Sparta, for plaintiff appellee.
Broughton, Teague.& Johnson, Raleigh, and Larry S. Moore, North Wilkesboro, for defendant appellants.
It is to be noted in the beginning that the demurrer is in general terms. It does not point out any particular fact which should be but is not alleged. It seems to be directed solely to the contention that plaintiff as a third party beneficiary has no right to maintain an action on the policy. Even so, we take note of certain contentions advanced by defendant in its brief as to why the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
It is settled law with us that where the policy of insurance is against liability and not of indemnity and the liability of the insured has been established by judgment, the injured person may maintain an action on the policy of insurance, that is, coverage attaches when liability attaches, regardless of actual loss by the insured at the time, and the coverage inures to the benefit of the party injured. Carolina Transp. & Distributing Co. v. American Alliance Insurance Co., 214 N.C. 596, 200 S.E. 411; 6 Blashfield, Part 2, 104.
But here plaintiff is not required to look to, and we need not cite, former decisions of this Court. The right of action by a third party beneficiary is stipulated in the policy.
'Any person or organization or the legal representative thereof who has secured such judgment (against the insured) or written agreement (agreement signed by the insured, the claimant, and the company) shall thereafter be entitled to recover under this policy to the extent of the insurance afforded by this policy.'
The policy of insurance which is made a part of the complaint insures, primarily, against liability arising out of the operation of the particular motor vehicle described in the policy. Defendant in its brief contends that as it is not alleged the death of plaintiff's intestate arose out of the negligent operation of this particular vehicle, the complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant. But, on this record, such is not the case. The rider attached to the policy provides that 'If the named insured is an individual who owns the automobile classified as 'pleasure and business' or husband and wife either or both of whom own said automobile, such insurance as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seguro-Suarez by and through Connette v. Key Risk Ins. Co.
...maintain an action on the policy of insurance, that is, coverage attaches when liability attaches ...." Hall v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. , 233 N.C. 339, 340, 64 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1951) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Craven , 172 N.C. App. at 342, 615 S.E.2d at 724 (2005) (q......
-
Romfo v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
...which is the date of the entry of judgment against Witt. See [D.E. 10] 1. In support, Scottsdale cites Hall v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Company, 233 N.C. 339, 64 S.E.2d 160 (1951). In Hall, the plaintiff alleged that the insured negligently operated a motor vehicle and proximately cause......
-
USA Trouser, S.A de C.V. v. Williams
... ... See ... Pinney v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. , 146 N.C.App. 248, ... 253, 552 S.E.2d 186, 190 (2001) ... See Hall v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. , 233 N.C ... 339, 340, 64 S.E.2d 160, 161 ... ...
-
Bradford v. Kelly, 99
...which the defendant might obtain against the plaintiff and thus be subjected to a liability it had already discharged. Hall v. Casualty Co., 233 N.C. 339, 64 S.E.2d 160; Campbell v. Casualty Co., 212 N.C. 65, 192 S.E. 906; Squires v. Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 580, 108 S.E.2d 908. Plaintiff is......