Setzer v. Pyramid Life Insurance

127 S.E.2d 783, 258 N.C. 66, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 627
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 31, 1962·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The pertinent provisions of the policy are clear and unambiguous. We give the language used its plain, natural, ordinary and obvious meaning. Marshall v. Insurance Co., 246 N.C. 447, 98 S.E. 2d 345. Plaintiff’s evidence compels the conclusion that his tragic injury is not within the coverage of the policy. At the time of the accident plaintiff was not “riding in or on” the tractor. He was not “struck, knocked down or run over” by a moving vehicle, machine or implement. He was in the process of “adjusting” the harvester, the head of which had become jammed by the silage and was temporarily inoperative, and he was injured by the harvester.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

[68] Denny, C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Setzer v. Pyramid Life Insurance, 127 S.E.2d 783, 258 N.C. 66, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 627 (N.C. 1962).

127 S.E.2d 783 (Setzer v. Pyramid Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
163 S.E.2d 400 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Vann v. Hayes
147 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)