State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Young

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Young

470 S.E.2d 361, 122 N.C. App. 505, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 454

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 21, 1996

DocketNo. 9321SC269

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 470 S.E.2d 361 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Young) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Young, 470 S.E.2d 361, 122 N.C. App. 505, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 454 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On 7 June 1994, this Court issued its opinion reversing the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Young, 115 N.C. App. 68, 443 S.E.2d 756 (1994). In so doing, we held invalid and unenforceable a provision in the underinsured motorist coverage clause of automo-. bile liability insurance policies issued by plaintiff which attempted to exclude from such coverage a motor vehicle owned by the named insured.

On 9 February 1996, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed that we reconsider our decision in light of its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Young, 342 N.C. 647, 466 S.E.2d 275 (1996). In Nationwide v. Mabe, the Supreme Court held an owned vehicle exclusion provision of the underinsured motorist insurance coverage at issue in that case to be violative of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Responsibility Act. We have again considered the issue in the present case in light of Nationwide v. Mabe, and we again conclude that “an underinsured highway vehicle as defined in G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) can include a motor vehicle owned by the named insured, and the provisions in the policies issued by plaintiff attempting to exclude such coverage are invalid and unenforceable.” State Farm, 115 N.C. App. at 74, 443 S.E.2d at 761. Accordingly, the trial court’s order of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on this issue is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with our original opinion.

Panel consisting of:

Chief Judge ARNOLD, Judges WYNN and MARTIN, John C.

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

PER CURIAM.

On 7 June 1994, this Court issued its opinion reversing the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Young, 115 N.C. App. 68, 443 S.E.2d 756 (1994). In so doing, we held invalid and unenforceable a provision in the underinsured motorist coverage clause of automo-. bile liability insurance policies issued by plaintiff which attempted to exclude from such coverage a motor vehicle owned by the named insured.

On 9 February 1996, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated our opinion and directed that we reconsider our decision in light of its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 467 S.E.2d 34 (1996). State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Young, 342 N.C. 647, 466 S.E.2d 275 (1996). In Nationwide v. Mabe, the Supreme Court held an owned vehicle exclusion provision of the underinsured motorist insurance coverage at issue in that case to be violative of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Responsibility Act. We have again considered the issue in the present case in light of Nationwide v. Mabe, and we again conclude that “an underinsured highway vehicle as defined in G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) can include a motor vehicle owned by the named insured, and the provisions in the policies issued by plaintiff attempting to exclude such coverage are invalid and unenforceable.” State Farm, 115 N.C. App. at 74, 443 S.E.2d at 761. Accordingly, the trial court’s order of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on this issue is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with our original opinion.

Panel consisting of:

Chief Judge ARNOLD, Judges WYNN and MARTIN, John C.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 S.E.2d 361, 122 N.C. App. 505, 1996 N.C. App. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-young-ncctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack