Chadwick v. Aetna Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Chadwick v. Aetna Insurance Company

176 S.E.2d 352, 9 N.C. App. 446, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1381

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 16, 1970

Docket7021DC481

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 176 S.E.2d 352 (Chadwick v. Aetna Insurance Company) 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

Chadwick v. Aetna Insurance Company, 176 S.E.2d 352, 9 N.C. App. 446, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1381 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Brock, J.

The crux of defendant’s appeal lies in its eighth assignment of error which asserts error in the trial court’s construction of the exclusionary provision of the policy quoted above. The trial judge instructed the jury, in effect, that it was not to be concerned whether the loss was an “unexplained loss” or a “mysterious disappearance” unless it was disclosed on taking inventory. He clearly instructed the jury that the provision of the policy quoted above contained only one exclusion, i.e., “loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.” We disagree with this interpretation.

It is well settled that policies of insurance, having been prepared by the insurer, are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured, and strictly against the insurer. An exception from liability is not favored. Henderson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17 (1966). However, these rules come into play only where the language is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible of two or more interpretations. Walsh v. United Insurance Co. of America, 265 N.C. 634, 144 S.E. 2d 817 (1965).

The parties cite no case, and none is found, in which policy language similar to that here involved was construed. However, we think that the provision in question is sufficiently definite to be construed according to its terms, without resort to the rule of liberality in favor of the insured. The provision clearly contemplated that liability would be precluded in any one of three events, to wit:

1. Unexplained loss, or

2. Mysterious disappearance or

3. Loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.

*448 It appears plainly that the import of the provision is to bar recovery for unexplained losses or for mysterious disappearances, however they come to light, and for loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.

It is not deemed necessary to discuss appellant’s remaining assignments of error.

New Trial.

Morris and Graham, JJ., concur.

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

Brock, J.

The crux of defendant’s appeal lies in its eighth assignment of error which asserts error in the trial court’s construction of the exclusionary provision of the policy quoted above. The trial judge instructed the jury, in effect, that it was not to be concerned whether the loss was an “unexplained loss” or a “mysterious disappearance” unless it was disclosed on taking inventory. He clearly instructed the jury that the provision of the policy quoted above contained only one exclusion, i.e., “loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.” We disagree with this interpretation.

It is well settled that policies of insurance, having been prepared by the insurer, are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured, and strictly against the insurer. An exception from liability is not favored. Henderson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17 (1966). However, these rules come into play only where the language is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible of two or more interpretations. Walsh v. United Insurance Co. of America, 265 N.C. 634, 144 S.E. 2d 817 (1965).

The parties cite no case, and none is found, in which policy language similar to that here involved was construed. However, we think that the provision in question is sufficiently definite to be construed according to its terms, without resort to the rule of liberality in favor of the insured. The provision clearly contemplated that liability would be precluded in any one of three events, to wit:

1. Unexplained loss, or

2. Mysterious disappearance or

3. Loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.

*448 It appears plainly that the import of the provision is to bar recovery for unexplained losses or for mysterious disappearances, however they come to light, and for loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.

It is not deemed necessary to discuss appellant’s remaining assignments of error.

New Trial.

Morris and Graham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E.2d 352, 9 N.C. App. 446, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-aetna-insurance-company-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack