Harper v. Allstate Insurance
This text of 468 S.E.2d 859 (Harper v. Allstate Insurance) 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.
Opinion
On 6 December 1994, this Court issued an opinion affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action. Harper v. Allstate Ins. Co., 117 N.C. App. 302, 450 S.E.2d 759 (1994). On 9 February 1996, our Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed that we reconsider it in the light of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Harper v. Allstate Ins. [298]*298Co., 342 N.C. 643, 466 S.E.2d 77 (1996). Having so reconsidered, we again 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, our Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s rejection of the “owned vehicle” or “family member” exclusion with regard to UIM coverage. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the plaintiff is,
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
468 S.E.2d 859, 122 N.C. App. 297, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-allstate-insurance-ncctapp-1996.