Saunders v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance

157 S.E.2d 614, 272 N.C. 110, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 980
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 22, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 614 (Saunders v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual 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
Saunders v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance, 157 S.E.2d 614, 272 N.C. 110, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 980 (N.C. 1967).

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The coroner, who was not qualified as an expert, opined that the child died by smothering. No signs of violence were found on the body. No other evidence of the cause of death or the condition of the body was offered.

An insurance company generally has the right to fix the conditions upon which it will become liable, and the patron has the right to accept or refuse them. Here the policy is explicit that the defendant will pay additional (double indemnity) benefits only upon conditions not here shown. There was no evidence of “visible bodily injuries” nor of “violent, external means” causing the death of the insured.

Under well stated opinions of this Court, as set forth in Langley v. Insurance Co., 261 N.C. 459, 135 S.E. 2d 38, and Henderson v. Indemnity Co., 268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17, the plaintiff cannot recover.

In the judgment of nonsuit, there was

No error.

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

Related

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Ingram
271 S.E.2d 46 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 S.E.2d 614, 272 N.C. 110, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-charlotte-liberty-mutual-insurance-nc-1967.