Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

51 S.E.2d 898, 230 N.C. 65, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 553
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 2, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 S.E.2d 898 (Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 51 S.E.2d 898, 230 N.C. 65, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 553 (N.C. 1949).

Opinion

*66 Seawell, J.

In the opinion, reported in 229 N.C. 397, it was inadvertently stated that it did not appear that plaintiff Fleming had been paid for his loss by any insurance company, whereas it is alleged that five of these insurers (Capital Fire Insurance Co., Citizens Insurance Company of New Jersey, Continental Insurance Co., Home Insurance Co., and by reason of merger the American National Fire Insurance Co. is owner of the claim of the North Carolina Home Insurance Company), have made payments to him on account of this loss. These corporations would, therefore, be at least prima, facie proper parties, and the order made here that the-additional parties brought in under the defendant’s motion be stricken from the record is modified accordingly.

In view of the claims now alleged to have been paid by the named insurance companies, a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the allegations in defendant’s second defense, based upon plaintiff’s agreement to indemnify and defend the defendant against all claims for loss, costs and expenses on account of defective appliances on plaintiff’s side of the point of delivery of electric current, would be sufficient to survive a demurrer in respect to the allegations therein of an agreement to defend, and that the court below properly overruled the demurrer. Hence the order striking out the defendant’s cross-action is to that extent modified.

The cause is remanded for further proceeding not inconsistent with the opinion as herein modified.

Except as herein allowed, the petition to rehear is dismissed.

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

Related

Sparks v. Oxy-Health, LLC
134 F. Supp. 3d 961 (E.D. North Carolina, 2015)
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
61 S.E.2d 364 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 S.E.2d 898, 230 N.C. 65, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-carolina-power-light-co-nc-1949.