Hilley v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 07 May 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 521,521 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | , 38 A.L.R.2d 1090 HILLEY, v. BLUE RIDGE INS. CO. |
Horace Kennedy, Shelby, for defendant appellant.
Frank P. Cooke, Gastonia, R. R. Friday, Gastonia, for plaintiff appellee.
The sole question presented on this appeal is based upon exception by defendant to the ruling of the trial court in overruling its motion for judgment as of nonsuit.
Defendant contends, and we hold properly so, that since the terms of the policy of insurance, and of the release given by plaintiff to Southern Railway Company are in writing, and free from ambiguity, and are in evidence, the ascertainment of their meaning and effect is for the court and not for the jury.
The terms of the condition of the policy relating to subrogation are clear, and speak for themselves. Likewise the terms of the release are clear, and speak for themselves. Brock v. Porter, 220 N.C. 28, 16 S.E.2d 410. Hence the ascertainment of their meaning and effect is for the court, and not for the jury. Young v. Jeffreys, 20 N.C. 357; Patton v. Sinclaire Lbr. Co., 179 N.C. 103, 101 S.E. 613; Drake v. City of Asheville, 194 N.C. 6, 138 S.E. 343.
One of the conditions on which the policy of insurance here involved was issued provides that 'in the event of any payment under this policy, the company shall be subrogated to all the insured's rights of recovery therefor against any person or organization and the insured shall execute and deliver instruments and papers and do whatever else is necessary to secure such rights,' and that 'the insured shall do nothing after loss to prejudice such rights.'
This clearly and expressly gave to the insurance company right of subrogation--and obligated the insured, the plaintiff, to secure to it such right, and to do nothing after loss to prejudice such rights.
On the other hand, the terms of the release read as follows:
Thus it appears that plaintiff has released and discharged the railway company 'from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of actions of any kind * * * arising out of or in connection with * * property damages' at time and place in question.
And in this connection this Court, in opinion by Barnhill, J., in Service Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Horton Motor Lines, Inc., 225 N.C. 588, 35 S.E.2d 879, 880, in keeping with prior decisions, declared: , citing Powell & Powell v. Wake Water Co., 171 N.C. 290, 88 S.E. 426, Ann. Cas.1917A, 1302; 1 Am. Jur. 493.
And it is a well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Strickland's Auto & Truck Repairs, Inc.
...Ins. Co. v. Tires Into Recycled Energy and Supplies, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 223, 522 S.E.2d 798 (1999); Hilley v. Blue Ridge Insurance Co., 235 N.C. 544, 549, 70 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1952). This follows the principle that an insurer's subrogation rights may not be greater than the rights of the in......
-
Markham v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...company, the insurance company's right of subrogation against the wrongdoer is thereby destroyed." Hilley v. Blue Ridge Insurance Co., 235 N.C. 544, 549, 70 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1952). Cf. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 49 N.C.App. 32, 38, 270 S.E.2d 510, 514 (1980) (insu......
-
Rogers v. American Fidelity & Cas. Co.
...precluded by his own breach of contract in respect to the subrogatory position of the carrier. Hilley v. Blue Ridge Insurance Company, 235 N.C. 544, 70 S.E.2d 570, 38 A.L.R.2d 1090 (Sup.Ct.1952); Auto Owners' Protective Exchange of Kankakee, Ill., v. Edwards, 82 Ind.App. 558, 136 N.E. 577 (......
-
Young v. Southern Mica Co. of N. C.
...is free from ambiguity, the ascertainment of its meaning and effect is for the court, and not for the jury. Hilley v. Blue Ridge Insurance Co., 235 N.C. 544, 70 S.E.2d 570; Sellars v. Johnson, 65 N.C. 104. We find no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language of the contract before us. Accord......