Parker v. State Capital Life Ins. Co., 239

Decision Date20 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 239,239
PartiesWilliam T. PARKER, Jr. v. STATE CAPITAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Berry & Browne, Charlotte, Allen & Steed, by Thomas W. Steed, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant, appellant.

Elbert E. Foster, Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The essential facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff contends the court's finding No. 6, unexcepted to, is conclusive, and establishes his right to recover under the policy. However, the defendant, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and again at the conclusion of all the evidence, moved for judgment of nonsuit. Exceptions to the refusal to nonsuit were taken and are assigned as error. Consequently, the question whether No. 6 is a finding of fact, a conclusion of law, or a combination of both, is immaterial. The sufficiency of all the evidence to support the judgment is challenged by the assignment of error. The ultimate and controlling facts not being in dispute, the construction of the policy becomes a matter of law.

The parties admit the plaintiff received an injury by accident on October 1, 1961. He received first aid treatment for burns on that date. Within two or three days there-after he developed pain over the kidney area. However, he did some work in his regular occupation as driver of the fire truck. The pain became more and more intense until on November 21, under his doctor's orders, he entered Mercy Hospital in Charlotte where, on December 4, Dr. Squires removed his right kidney.

Claims are provided for under 'SPECIAL INDEMNITY' provisions of the policy. The main coverage is for loss of life, one or both hands, one or both feet, the sight of one or both eyes, amputation of certain fingers on one or both hands. No. 3 provides for the indemnity for the expenses of hospital confinement. No. 6 provides for weekly income while in hospital for the period of such confinement. Both provisions require that the loss shall occur within 30 days from the date of the accident, and that the confinement must be continuous. Within 30 days from the time it happened, the accident must necessitate removal to and continuous confinement within an incorporated hospital. Actually the terms cover only what the victim of the accident does--not what he might have done.

All the evidence indicated, and the court found, the plaintiff did not enter the hospital until 51 days after the accident. Notwithstanding the doctor's testimony that claimant should have entered the hospital for treatment of his injury within the period of 30 days after he sustained his injury, nevertheless he delayed for 51 days. The insurance policy, by its plain and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • A. G. v. Fattaleh
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • July 14, 2022
    ...... L.G.'s prognosis and life" trajectory have been forever. altered, and \xE2"...Turner. Construction Co ., et al ., 946 F.3d 201, 206. (4th Cir. ... Hill, 350 N.C. 231, 239", 513 S.E.2d 547, 551 (1999). . . \xC2"... .          To. state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional ... question. See, e.g., Clemmons v. Life Ins. Co. of. Ga., 274 N.C. 416, 163 S.E.2d ... policy is an issue of law. See Parker v. State Cap. Life. Ins. Co. , 259 N.C. ... reasonable construction.” State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 318 ......
  • A.G. v. Fattaleh
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • July 14, 2022
    ...557 (1990). Where the relevant facts are not disputed, construing the policy is an issue of law. SeeParker v. State Cap. Life Ins. Co. , 259 N.C. 115, 117, 130 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1963) ; Trophy Tracks, Inc. v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co. , 195 N.C. App. 734, 739, 673 S.E.2d 787, 790 (2009). Courts apply......
  • Kenney Props. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • July 13, 2022
    ...... defend and indemnify Kenney in an underlying state court. action, and alleging violations of North ... See Parker v. State Cap. Life Ins. Co. 259 N.C. 115,117,130 ......
  • AMCO Ins. Co. v. Van Laningham & Assocs.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • July 18, 2022
    ...... September 30, 2019, William Parker Garey and five other. plaintiffs filed a second. ... . . (4) Any federal, state or local statute, ordinance or. regulation, other ... an issue of law. See Parker v. State Cap. Life Ins. Co., 259 N.C. 115, 117, 130 S.E.2d 36, 38 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT