Huffman v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Raleigh, 441
| Citation | 264 N.C. 335,141 S.E.2d 496 |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 441,441 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | Thomas Roy HUFFMAN v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF RALEIGH, North Carolina. |
Ferree & Brewer, Wilkesboro, and McElwee & Hall, North Wilkesboro, for plaintiff.
Whicker & Whicker, North Wilkesboro, and Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett, Raleigh, for defendant.
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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc.
...and punctuation may be carefully analyzed to confirm the meaning of the document's language. See Huffman v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Raleigh, 264 N.C. 335, 338, 141 S.E.2d 496, 498 (1965). The disputed subrogation receipt acknowledges plaintiff's receipt of $600,900 (the maximum insuranc......
-
Burne v. Franklin Life Ins. Co.
...the policy time period will suffice. Cornellier v. American Casualty Co., 389 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1968); Huffman v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 264 N.C. 335, 141 S.E.2d 496 (1965); Shelton v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 28 Ill.App.2d 461, 171 N.Ed.2d 787 (1961). Cf. Huff v. Vulcan Life & ......
-
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
...not assume and for which the policyholder did not pay. Williams v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Huffman v. Occidental Life Insurance Co., 264 N.C. 335, 141 S.E.2d 496; McDowell Motor Co. v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co., 233 N.C. 251, 63 S.E.2d As in other contracts, the ob......
-
DeBerry v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
...so as to impose upon the insurer a liability which it did not assume and for which the policyholder did not pay. Huffman v. Insurance Co., 264 N.C. 335, 141 S.E.2d 496 (1965). We conclude that the trial judge erred in concluding that the limit of defendant's liability exceeded (3) Attorney'......