Huffman v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Raleigh, 441

• Decision Date: 28 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 441,441
• Citation: Huffman v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Raleigh, 264 N.C. 335, 141 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. 1965)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Thomas Roy HUFFMAN v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF RALEIGH, North Carolina.

Page 496

141 S.E.2d 496

264 N.C. 335

Thomas Roy HUFFMAN v.OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF RALEIGH, North Carolina.

No. 441.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 28, 1965.

Ferree & Brewer, Wilkesboro, and McElwee & Hall, North Wilkesboro, for plaintiff.

Whicker & Whicker, North Wilkesboro, and Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett, Raleigh, for defendant.

MOORE, Justice.

The sole question for decision is whether the court below properly interpreted the applicable provision of the insurance policy.

The 'Supplement' to the insurance policy provides: 'It is agreed * * * that if the Insured * * * shall sustain PERSONAL BODILY INJURY which is effected solely through external, violent and accidental means * * *, and which directly and independently of all other causes results in any of the losses enumerated in the schedule of losses and indemnities, which appears below, within 90 days thereafter, the company will pay * * * to the Insured * * *:' (according to the schedule) $2500 for loss of one foot.

Plaintiff contends that there is ambiguity in the language employed, and one of the interpretations of which the supplement is reasonably susceptible is that insurer agrees to pay insured $2500 within 90 days after loss of a foot.On the other hand, defendant contends that the meaning is clear and unambiguous, and insurer agrees to pay insured $2500 if the loss of a foot results within 90 days after the injury.

The judge adopted plaintiff's interpretation and applied the rule that if the terms of an insurance policy are 'susceptible of two interpretations, the one imposing liability, the other excluding it, the former is to be adopted and the latter rejected, because the policies having been prepared by the insurers, or by persons skilled in insurance law and acting in the exclusive interest of the insurance company, it is but meet that such policies should be construed liberally in respect of the persons insured, and strictly against the insurance company.'Gould Morris Electric Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 518, 50 S.E.2d 295.

But '[p]olicies of * * * insurance, like all other written contracts, are to be construed and enforced according to their terms.If plain and unambiguous, the meaning thus expressed must be ascribed to them.'Gould Morris Electric Co. v. Atlantic Fire Insurance Co., supra.Policies of insurance must be given a reasonable interpretation consonant with the apparent object and plain intent of the policies.Parker v. Capital Life Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 115, 130 S.E.2d 36.In our opinion the pertinent terms of the subject policy are plain and unambiguous.From a consideration of the 'Supplement' as a whole, it is clear that the intent is to indemnify insured for such specified loss as occurs within 90 days after the injury which, directly and independently of all other causes, gives rise to the loss.

We are confirmed in our opinion by the sentence structure and punctuation employed.It is true that punctuation or the absence...