Younts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 96,96
• Citation: Younts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 189 S.E.2d 137, 281 N.C. 582 (N.C. 1972)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Mildred H. YOUNTS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 137

189 S.E.2d 137

281 N.C. 582

Mildred H. YOUNTS v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 96.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 16, 1972.

John Randolph Ingram, Asheboro, for plaintiffappellant.

Edwin T. Pullen, Winston-Salem, for defendantappellee.

MOORE, Justice.

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence.

On a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff.G.S. § 1A--1,Rule 50(a),Rules of Civil Procedure;Adler v. Lumber Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 280 N.C. 146, 185 S.E.2d 144(1971);Kelly v. International Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 179 S.E.2d 396(1971); 5A Moore's Federal Practice§ 50.02(1)(2d Ed. 1969).

The motion presents substantially the same question for sufficiency as did a motion for an involuntary nonsuit under former G.S. § 1--183.As to the rules which governed the motion for an involuntary nonsuit under G.S. § 1--183, seeBowen v. Gardner, 275 N.C. 363, 168 S.E.2d 47(1969).See alsoComment by Phillips in 1969 Pocket Part to McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure§ 1488.15 (2d Ed. 1969).

The insurance policy on which plaintiff seeks to recover is an owner's liability policy covering a 1953 Oldsmobile, serial No. R546464, issued by defendant to Myers as owner on 1 June 1962.G.S. § 20--279.21(a)(b).In order for the plaintiff to recover on this policy, the burden is on plaintiff to allege and prove that Myers was insured under this policy on 3 November 1962, the date of the accident in which plaintiff was injured.Brevard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 262 N.C. 458, 137 S.E.2d 837(1964);4 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Insurance§ 106.Defendant is liable to the plaintiff only if its liability accrues under the provisions set out in the contract of insurance between defendant and its insured, Myers.Kirk v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 651, 119 S.E.2d 645(1961).The policy provides that State Farm shall '. . . pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay . . . arising out of the Ownership, maintenance or use of the Owned automobile. . . .'(Emphasis added.)In the absence of any provision in the Financial Responsibility Act broadening the liability of the insurer, such liability must be measured by the terms of the policy as written.In Underwood v. National Grange Mutual Liability Co., 258 N.C. 211, 218, 128 S.E.2d 577, 582(1962), this Court quotes with approval:

"As is said in Byrd v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., supra(4 Cir.), 180 F.2d (246), 249, 'There is no insurance separate and distinct from the ownership of the car.'This is so because an owner's motor vehicle liability policy is a contract between the insurance company and the owner."

Accord: Howell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 237 N.C. 227, 74 S.E.2d 610(1953).

The question presented then is: Who, within the purview of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act of 1953(Chapter 20, Article 9A), was the owner of the 1953 Oldsmobile on 3 November 1962?

G.S. § 20--279.1(9) defines 'owner' as 'A person who holds the legal title of a motor vehicle, or in the event a motor vehicle is the subject of an agreement for the conditional sale or lease thereof with the right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement and with an immediate right of possession vested in the conditional vendee or lessee, or in the event a mortgagor of a vehicle is entitled to possession, then such conditional vendee or lessee or mortgagor shall be deemed the owner for the purposes of this article.'Under this definition the word 'owner' embraces the holder of title and a mortgagor, conditional vendee or lessee having the right of purchase and the right of possession.SeeNationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hayes, 276 N.C. 620, 174 S.E.2d 511(1970).

The evidence in this case shows that on the date the accident occurred, 3 November 1962, the registered title holder of the 1953 Oldsmobile in question was Arthur Lee Charles, not the insured Myers.In order to transfer title, G.S. § 20--72(b)as amended by the General Assembly in 1961 provided that the owner shall '. . . endorse an assignment and warranty of title including in such endorsement the name and address of the transferee and the date of transfer, in form approved by the Department upon the reverse side of the certificate of title or execute an assignment and warranty of title of such vehicle and a statement of all liens or encumbrances thereon, which statement shall be verified under oath by the owner, who shall deliver the certificate of title to the purchaser or transferee at the time of delivering the vehicle. . . .Transfer of ownership in a vehicle by an owner is not effective until the provisions of this subsection have been complied with.'

In International Service Insurance Co. v. Iowa Nat. Mutual Insurance Co., 276 N.C. 243, 172 S.E.2d 55(1970), Justice Huskins, in construing G.S. § 20--72(b), said:

'We hold therefore that after 1 July 1961, the effective date of the amendments, no title passed to the purchaser of a motor vehicle until (1) the certificate of title has been assigned by the vendor, (2) delivered to the vendee or his agent, and (3) application made for a new certificate of title.This accords with prior decisions in National Bank of Sanford v. Greensboro Motor Co., supra(264 N.C. 568, 142 S.E.2d 166), andCommunity Credit Co. v. Norwood, supra(257 N.C. 87, 125 S.E.2d 369).'(The accident in the present case occurred 3 November 1962.)

SeeNationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman's Insurance Co., 279 N.C. 240, 182 S.E.2d 571(1971), andNationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hayes, supra, for cases construing this statute subsequent to the 1963amendment.

In this case, there is no evidence that Myers was the holder of a legal title to the Oldsmobile in question or that he was a mortgagor, conditional vendee, or lessee, having the right of purchase and the right of possession.Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hayes, supra.The only evidence offered by plaintiff concerning the ownership of the 1953 Oldsmobile was the testimony of one Billy Joe Wright.Wright testified that he had been the owner of a 1953 Oldsmobile, serial No. 1546464.(It is noted that the insurance policy in question described the insured automobile as a 1953 Oldsmobile,...