Meiselman v. Wicker
| Decision Date | 02 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 666.,666. |
| Citation | 30 S.E.2d 317,224 N.C. 417 |
| Parties | MEISELMAN . v. WICKER et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cumberland County; Q. K. Nimocks, Jr., Judge.
Action by Herman B. Meiselman against Phil Wicker and others to recover for negligent failure to keep plaintiff's theater equipment insured against loss by fire. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
No error.
Civil action to recover damages for negligent failure to keep plaintiff's theatre equipment insured against loss by fire.
The plaintiff operates two moving picture theatres, one in Fayetteville and the other in Rockingham. The defendants are engaged in selling theatre supplies and equipment. In 1939, the plaintiff purchased valuable equipment from the defendants under conditional sales contract, and installed it in his theatres. The defendants carried insurance on their interest in the property.
The complaint alleges:
1. That on 13 February, 1941, the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiff with repair or replacement insurance against loss by fire up to $4000 on his property in the Rockingham theatre for a period of one year; that premiums were to be paid at intervals of 90 days under an extended coverage arrangement, and bills rendered therefor as other items in the open account between the parties.
2. That defendants provided insurance for the first three quarters of the year in accordance with their agreement, but failed to provide any during the last quarter.
3. That on 26 January, 1942, plaintiff's equipment in the Rockingham theatre was destroyed by fire, and that he suffered a loss of $4000.
Upon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and fixed his damages at $3000.
From judgment on the verdict, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.
W. Louis Ellis, Jr., and James R. Nance, both of Fayetteville, for plaintiff, appellee.
Stern & Stern, of Greensboro, and Rose, Lyon & Rose, of Fayetteville, for defendants, appellants.
The plaintiff grounds his action on the principle announced in Elam v. Smith-deal Realty & Ins. Co., 182 N.C. 599, 109 S.E. 632, 18 A.L.R. 1210, that where an agent or broker undertakes to procure insurance for another, affording protection against a designated risk, the law imposes upon him the duty, in the exercise of reasonable care, to perform the obligation he has assumed, and within the amount of the proposed insurance, he may be held liable for the loss properly attributable to his negligent default. See, also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fli-Back Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
...insurance may create a continuing agency relationship. See Wiles v. Mullinax, 267 N.C. 392, 148 S.E.2d 229 (1966); Meiselman v. Wicker, 224 N.C. 417, 30 S.E.2d 371 (1944). The evidence PMM furnished in support of its motion for summary judgment raises a strong inference that PMM accepted a ......
-
Hamacher v. Tumy
...He contends that they are liable for negligent failure to procure for and to issue to him, such contract.' See, also Meiselman v. Wicker, 224 N.C. 417, 30 S.E.2d 317; Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & Insurance Company, 182 N.C. 599, 109 S.E. 632, 18 A.L.R. 1210; Russell v. O'Connor, 120 Minn. 66,......
-
Mayo v. American Fire & Cas. Co.
...S.E.2d 246; Wiles v. Mullinax (first appeal), 267 N.C. 392, 148 S.E.2d 229; Bank v. Bryan, 240 N.C. 610, 83 S.E.2d 485; Meiselman v. Wicker, 224 N.C. 417, 30 S.E.2d 317; Case v. Ewbanks, 194 N.C. 775, 140 S.E. 709; Elam v. Realty Co., 182 N.C. 599, 109 S.E. 632, 18 A.L.R. 1210. See also: 43......
-
Brown v. Cooley
...He contends that they are liable for negligent failure to procure for and to issue to him, such contract.' See, also Meiselman v. Wicker, 224 N.C. 417, 30 S.E.2d 317; Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & Insurance Company, 182 N.C. 599, 109 S.E. 632, 18 A.L.R. 1210; Russell v. O'Connor, 120 Minn. 66,......