Peterson v. Royal Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 14 October 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
Citation | 110 S.E.2d 441,251 N.C. 61 |
Parties | W. W. PETERSON and wife, Peggy G. Peterson, v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Lonnie B. Williams and O. K. Pridgen II, Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellant.
Poisson, Campbell & Marshall, Wilmington, for defendant-appellee.
The policy, so far as pertinent to this controversy, provides: '* * * the coverage of this policy is extended to include direct loss by * * * explosion * * *'.
'The following are not explosions within the intent or meaning of these provisions: (a) Concussion unless caused by explosion, (b) Electrical arcing, (c) Water hammer, (d) Rupture or bursting of water pipes.
'Any other explosion clause made a part of this policy is superseded by this Extended Coverage.'
Plaintiff W. W. Peterson testified: * * *'
The incident about which he testified occurred between 11:00 o'clock and 12:00 o'clock. He went to lunch about 1:00 o'clock. He then observed:
Norwood Sommersett testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pre-Cast Concrete Products, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 17588.
...797 (8th Cir. 1929); Bolich v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, 205 N.C. 43, 169 S.E. 826, 828; Peterson v. Royal Insurance Company, 251 N.C. 61, 110 S.E.2d 441, 443. There is a recent case, curiously not cited by either party to the case at bar, Aetna Casualty and Surety Comp......
-
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 39609
...breaking forth of a confined substance as a result of an Internal force * * *.' (Italics supplied.) Likewise, in Peterson v. Royal Ins. Co., 251 N.C. 61, 64, 110 S.E.2d 441, 443, the court 'Internal pressure causing a sudden expansion resulting in bursting or disruption are essential elemen......
-
Jackson v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Company
...considered in its entirety is insufficient to establish that the damage was caused by an explosion. In Peterson v. Royal Insurance Co., 251 N.C. 61, 110 S.E.2d 441 (1959) the Supreme Court of North Carolina, after holding that proof of damage from a concussion, without explanation as to the......