Moore v. Adams Elec. Co., 669

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Moore v. Adams Elec. Co., 131 S.E.2d 356, 259 N.C. 735 (N.C. 1963)
• Decision Date: 14 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 669,669
• Parties: Howard Clinton MOORE v. ADAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., Employer, Non-Insurer and/or Insured by Zurich Insurance Company, Carrier, Great American Insurance Company, Carrier.

Page 356

131 S.E.2d 356

259 N.C. 735

Howard Clinton MOORE v. ADAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., Employer, Non-Insurer and/or Insured by Zurich Insurance Company, Carrier Great American Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 669

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 14, 1963

Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett by Willis Smith, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant appellant Great American Ins. Co.

Bethea & Robinson by Norwood E. Robinson, Reidsville, for defendant appellee Adams Electric Co.

PER CURIAM.

The authority to find facts necessary for an award pursuant to the provisions of our compensation act is vested exclusively in the Industrial Commission. G. S. § 97-86. On appeal from the Commission to the Superior Court the review is limited to questions of law. Whether the record contains any competent evidence to support the facts as found and whether the facts found are sufficient to support the conclusions of the Commission are questions of law. Brice v. Robertson House Moving Wrecking and Salvage Co., 249 N.C. 74, 105 S.E.2d 439.

While the judgment recites the judge made findings of fact as well as conclusions of law, we think it apparent the court treated as legal conclusions statements purporting to be findings of fact made by the Commission.

Under the heading 'FINDINGS OF FACT' the hearing commissioner said: '8. That Great American Insurance Company had cancelled its coverage for defendant Adams Electric Company, Inc. on December 27, 1959; that on February 7, 1960, Great American Insurance Company was not bound on the workmen's compensation risk.

'9. That Zurich Insurance Company terminated its coverage for defendant Adams Electric Company, Inc., on January 21, 1960; that on February 7, 1960, Zurich Insurance Company was not bound on the workmen's compensation risk.'

'11. That on February 7, 1960, defendant Adams Electric Company, Inc. had failed to comply with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and did not have insurance coverage on its employees.'

If statements 8 and 9 quoted above are true findings of fact, statement 11 follows as a logical conclusion.

The appeals necessarily present this question: Are designated findings 8 and 9 really factual decisions reached after weighing the evidence or are they conclusions based, in part at least, on the finder's interpretation of the law'

American stipulated it issued a policy of workmen's compensation insurance to M. E. Adams trading as Adams Electric Co. on 22 March 1959. The expiration date of the policy, as disclosed by an exhibit, was 22 March 1960.

The evidence is sufficient to establish that: M. E. Adams and two others created a North Carolina corporation in July 1959 under the corporate name 'Adams Electric Company' (the record here uses the name 'Adams Electric Company, Inc.'); the corporation after organization took over and operated the business theretofore conducted by M. E. Adams under the trade name of Adams Electric Company; M. E. Adams was the sole stockholder in the corporation which had an authorized capital stock of $100,000 but was authorized to begin business when $100 had been paid in.

Is the clause in finding 8 that American 'was not bound on the workmen's compensation risk' based on the argument that American only insured Adams as an individual and not the corporate entity employing claimant when injured? If so, the so-called finding is an interpretation of the law.

G.S. § 97-99 prohibits an insurer from writing workmen's compensation insurance unless the policy 'shall provide a thirty-day prior notice of an intention to cancel same by the carrier to the insured by registered mail or certified mail.'

The evidence, undisputed as we read the record, is to the effect that American not only wrote workmen's compensation insurance for Adams Electric Company but also insured it against liability in connection with the use of its automobiles.

American asserted, when charged with liability to claimant, that it had cancelled all the insurance which employer carried with it, having given insured at least thirty days' notice of its intent to cancel.

Employer conceded it had notice of the cancellation of the automobile insurance but denied that any notice had been given it of an intent to cancel the workmen's compensation policy.

The evidence is sufficient to show American sent notice of its intent to cancel the workmen's compensation insurance to the Industrial Commission, to the Compensation and Rating Bureau, and to American's agent who wrote the insurance. There is also evidence from which the...