Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pittman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pittman

348 S.E.2d 350, 82 N.C. App. 756, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2629

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 16, 1986

DocketNo. 8610SC226

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 348 S.E.2d 350 (Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pittman) 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

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pittman, 348 S.E.2d 350, 82 N.C. App. 756, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2629 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

In Lovell v. Insurance Co., 302 N.C. 150, 274 S.E. 2d 170 (1981), our Supreme Court recognized the right of an innocent spouse to recover on a homeowner insurance policy where the property loss is caused by the wrongful acts of the other spouse. Although Nationwide agrees that the “innocent spouse doctrine” should apply in this case, it contests the manner in which the court below calculated the defendant’s recovery. Nationwide argues that it should pay Ms. Pittman one-half of the agreed loss of [758]*758$40,034.34, with the defendant then responsible for the mortgages on the property. Nationwide’s rationale is that, since Ms. Pittman was jointly and severally liable on the notes, she bore the risk of paying the full amount of the indebtedness and should be liable for it under these circumstances. The court below disagreed, basing its calculations upon Lovell. In that case, the Supreme Court directed that the insurance company pay the wife half of the amount left over after the mortgagees were paid. Using that same calculation, the result in the case at bar is that defendant was entitled to $11,742.00 — the distribution ordered by the court below. Since the trial court correctly based its formula on the one set out by our Supreme Court in Lovell, we are bound by that decision and therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WEBB concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

In Lovell v. Insurance Co., 302 N.C. 150, 274 S.E. 2d 170 (1981), our Supreme Court recognized the right of an innocent spouse to recover on a homeowner insurance policy where the property loss is caused by the wrongful acts of the other spouse. Although Nationwide agrees that the “innocent spouse doctrine” should apply in this case, it contests the manner in which the court below calculated the defendant’s recovery. Nationwide argues that it should pay Ms. Pittman one-half of the agreed loss of [758]*758$40,034.34, with the defendant then responsible for the mortgages on the property. Nationwide’s rationale is that, since Ms. Pittman was jointly and severally liable on the notes, she bore the risk of paying the full amount of the indebtedness and should be liable for it under these circumstances. The court below disagreed, basing its calculations upon Lovell. In that case, the Supreme Court directed that the insurance company pay the wife half of the amount left over after the mortgagees were paid. Using that same calculation, the result in the case at bar is that defendant was entitled to $11,742.00 — the distribution ordered by the court below. Since the trial court correctly based its formula on the one set out by our Supreme Court in Lovell, we are bound by that decision and therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.E.2d 350, 82 N.C. App. 756, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-mutual-fire-insurance-v-pittman-ncctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack