Gardner v. Carolina Insurance

55 S.E.2d 694, 230 N.C. 750, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 455
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 19, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 694 (Gardner v. Carolina Insurance) 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
Gardner v. Carolina Insurance, 55 S.E.2d 694, 230 N.C. 750, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 455 (N.C. 1949).

Opinion

Barnhill, J.

Tbe contract between plaintiff and defendant is in tbe standard form prescribed by statute. G.S. 58-177. Tbe rights and liabilities of both parties under tbe policy must be ascertained and determined in accord witb its terms. Zibelin v. Insurance Co., 229 N.C. 567, and cases cited.

Under tbe terms of tbe policy tbe plaintiff was required to file witb defendant proof of loss witbin sixty days after tbe fire occurred, and tbe policy provides that unless tbis proof is filed witbin tbe prescribed period *751 no suit may be maintained on tbe policy. Tatham v. Ins. Co., 181 N.C. 434, 107 S.E. 450; Zibelin v. Insurance Co., supra. Ordinarily, compliance with these provisions of the contract must be alleged in the complaint and proved at the hearing.

The defendant, of course, could waive the filing of proof of loss, and it is generally held that a denial of liability by the insurer, made during the period prescribed b'y the policy for the presentation of proof of loss, on grounds not relating to the proof, will be considered a waiver of the provision requiring such proof. Gerringer v. Insurance Co., 133 N.C. 407; Felts v. Insurance Co., 221 N.C. 148, 19 S.E. 2d 259; Gorham v. Insurance Co., 214 N.C. 526, 200 S.E. 5; Anno. 22 A.L.R. 408. But the record fails to disclose either allegation or evidence of waiver.

As the plaintiff filed no proof of loss and has failed to show waiver, he has no enforceable cause of action. Therefore the judgment below must be

Affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
361 S.E.2d 571 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Smith v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
351 S.E.2d 774 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
Huggins v. Hartford Insurance
650 F. Supp. 38 (E.D. North Carolina, 1986)
Hanks v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
267 S.E.2d 409 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Dale v. Iowa Mutual Insurance
254 S.E.2d 41 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Davenport v. Travelers Indemnity Company
195 S.E.2d 529 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
Northern Assurance Co. v. Spencer
246 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. North Carolina, 1965)
Stout v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company
201 F. Supp. 647 (M.D. North Carolina, 1962)
Commercial Carving Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance
191 F. Supp. 753 (M.D. North Carolina, 1961)
Muncie v. Travelers Insurance Company
116 S.E.2d 474 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Boyd v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Company
96 S.E.2d 703 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 S.E.2d 694, 230 N.C. 750, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-carolina-insurance-nc-1949.