Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. Long

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. Long

421 S.E.2d 142, 332 N.C. 477, 1992 N.C. LEXIS 535

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 1, 1992

Docket516PA91

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 421 S.E.2d 142 (Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. Long) 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

Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. Long, 421 S.E.2d 142, 332 N.C. 477, 1992 N.C. LEXIS 535 (N.C. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

WHICHARD, Justice.

The sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the wife of the owner-insured of a policy issued by plaintiff is entitled as a Class I insured to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, when the wife was injured while riding in another car owned by her and insured by another carrier under a separate policy not containing UIM coverage.

Plaintiff issued a policy containing UIM coverage to John Long, defendant’s husband. The policy listed one 1986 Ford pickup truck as the only automobile on the policy. On 20 February 1988, defendant was a passenger in the 1978 Cadillac owned by her and driven by Tony Prigden Radford with her permission, when the Cadillac was hit by an auto driven by James David Parker, which had minimum limits coverage. The Cadillac was insured by an Allstate Insurance Company policy that did not contain UIM coverage. Defendant filed suit against Parker for damages and against plaintiff for UIM benefits under her husband’s policy. Defendant alleges that her damages exceed the $25,000 tendered by Parker’s insurance company, Interstate Casualty Insurance Company.

Under the husband’s policy issued by plaintiff, UIM coverage is available to a Class I “insured” person, which is defined as “1. You or any family member.” “Family member” is defined as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.” Under this definition, defendant is a Class I insured person. The Declarations page of plaintiff’s policy also explicitly lists defendant as an insured by reference to her birth date and the indication “MF” — married female — under the section “DRIVERS.”

These facts differ in only one pertinent respect from the facts in the Court’s recent opinion in Bass v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 109, 418 S.E.2d 221 (1992). In that case, the injured insured was an owner-insured, while defendant is the [479]*479wife of an owner-insured. In both cases, however, the injured parties are Class I insured persons. As a result, we hold that the reasoning of Bass, 332 N.C. at 112, 418 S.E.2d at 223, and Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 150, 400 S.E.2d 44, 51, reh’g denied, 328 N.C. 577, 403 S.E.2d 514 (1991) controls this case. For the reasons stated in those cases, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

WHICHARD, Justice.

The sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the wife of the owner-insured of a policy issued by plaintiff is entitled as a Class I insured to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, when the wife was injured while riding in another car owned by her and insured by another carrier under a separate policy not containing UIM coverage.

Plaintiff issued a policy containing UIM coverage to John Long, defendant’s husband. The policy listed one 1986 Ford pickup truck as the only automobile on the policy. On 20 February 1988, defendant was a passenger in the 1978 Cadillac owned by her and driven by Tony Prigden Radford with her permission, when the Cadillac was hit by an auto driven by James David Parker, which had minimum limits coverage. The Cadillac was insured by an Allstate Insurance Company policy that did not contain UIM coverage. Defendant filed suit against Parker for damages and against plaintiff for UIM benefits under her husband’s policy. Defendant alleges that her damages exceed the $25,000 tendered by Parker’s insurance company, Interstate Casualty Insurance Company.

Under the husband’s policy issued by plaintiff, UIM coverage is available to a Class I “insured” person, which is defined as “1. You or any family member.” “Family member” is defined as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.” Under this definition, defendant is a Class I insured person. The Declarations page of plaintiff’s policy also explicitly lists defendant as an insured by reference to her birth date and the indication “MF” — married female — under the section “DRIVERS.”

These facts differ in only one pertinent respect from the facts in the Court’s recent opinion in Bass v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 109, 418 S.E.2d 221 (1992). In that case, the injured insured was an owner-insured, while defendant is the [479]*479wife of an owner-insured. In both cases, however, the injured parties are Class I insured persons. As a result, we hold that the reasoning of Bass, 332 N.C. at 112, 418 S.E.2d at 223, and Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 150, 400 S.E.2d 44, 51, reh’g denied, 328 N.C. 577, 403 S.E.2d 514 (1991) controls this case. For the reasons stated in those cases, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 S.E.2d 142, 332 N.C. 477, 1992 N.C. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grain-dealers-mutual-insurance-v-long-nc-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack