Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co.

469 S.E.2d 598, 122 N.C. App. 393, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 385

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 7, 1996

DocketNo. COA93-1241

StatusPublished

This text of 469 S.E.2d 598 (Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co., 469 S.E.2d 598, 122 N.C. App. 393, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 385 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

On 18 October 1994, this Court issued an opinion reversing summary judgment for the defendant in a declaratory judgment action. Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co., 116 N.C. App. 735, 450 S.E.2d 355 (1994) (unpublished). On 9 February 1996, our Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed that we reconsider it in light of Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Buchanan, 342 N.C. 642, 466 S.E.2d 275 (1996). Having so reconsidered, we reject defendant’s argument that the family member exclusion in its policy excludes underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage for injuries sustained by the insured while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured which is not listed in the policy. In Mabe, this Court rejected, as did our Supreme Court, the “owned vehicle” or “family member” exclusion with regard to UIM coverage. Mabe, 115 N.C. App. 193, 444 S.E.2d 664 (1994), aff’d, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s entry of judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment for plaintiff.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges EAGLES and JOHN concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHNSON, Judge.

On 18 October 1994, this Court issued an opinion reversing summary judgment for the defendant in a declaratory judgment action. Buchanan v. Atlantic Indemnity Co., 116 N.C. App. 735, 450 S.E.2d 355 (1994) (unpublished). On 9 February 1996, our Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed that we reconsider it in light of Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Buchanan, 342 N.C. 642, 466 S.E.2d 275 (1996). Having so reconsidered, we reject defendant’s argument that the family member exclusion in its policy excludes underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage for injuries sustained by the insured while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured which is not listed in the policy. In Mabe, this Court rejected, as did our Supreme Court, the “owned vehicle” or “family member” exclusion with regard to UIM coverage. Mabe, 115 N.C. App. 193, 444 S.E.2d 664 (1994), aff’d, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s entry of judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment for plaintiff.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges EAGLES and JOHN concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 S.E.2d 598, 122 N.C. App. 393, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-atlantic-indemnity-co-ncctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack