Watson v. American National Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Watson v. American National Fire Insurance

425 S.E.2d 696, 333 N.C. 338, 1993 N.C. LEXIS 36

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 12, 1993

Docket281PA92

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 425 S.E.2d 696 (Watson v. American National Fire 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

Watson v. American National Fire Insurance, 425 S.E.2d 696, 333 N.C. 338, 1993 N.C. LEXIS 36 (N.C. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Justice.

This case brings to the Court a question as to whether the plaintiff has underinsured motorist coverage for injuries received in an automobile accident. The plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) provides that the policy he has with defendant gives him underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of his liability coverage because there is no showing that he rejected underinsured motorist coverage.

We hold that this case is governed by N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 which provides in part:

This Article . . . does not apply to any vehicle operated under a permit or certificate of convenience or necessity issued by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, or by the Interstate Commerce Commission, if public liability and property damage insurance for the protection of the public is required to be carried upon it.

*340 It is undisputed that the vehicles insured by the defendant were operating under a certificate of convenience issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the plaintiff was required to have the liability coverage that he had in order to receive this certificate. N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4), under which the plaintiff contends he is given underinsured motorist coverage, is part of the same article as N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32. By its plain words N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 says that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) does not apply in this case. The plaintiff has only such coverage as is provided in the policy.

The plaintiff, relying on Bray v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pa., 917 F.2d 130 (4th Cir. 1990), argues that the ICC regulations do not preempt state regulation of underinsured coverage. We agree. It is not the ICC regulations that preempt the plaintiff from underinsured motorist coverage. It is the statutes of this state which do not provide for underinsured motorist coverage in this case.

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

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

WEBB, Justice.

This case brings to the Court a question as to whether the plaintiff has underinsured motorist coverage for injuries received in an automobile accident. The plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) provides that the policy he has with defendant gives him underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of his liability coverage because there is no showing that he rejected underinsured motorist coverage.

We hold that this case is governed by N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 which provides in part:

This Article . . . does not apply to any vehicle operated under a permit or certificate of convenience or necessity issued by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, or by the Interstate Commerce Commission, if public liability and property damage insurance for the protection of the public is required to be carried upon it.

*340 It is undisputed that the vehicles insured by the defendant were operating under a certificate of convenience issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the plaintiff was required to have the liability coverage that he had in order to receive this certificate. N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4), under which the plaintiff contends he is given underinsured motorist coverage, is part of the same article as N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32. By its plain words N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 says that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) does not apply in this case. The plaintiff has only such coverage as is provided in the policy.

The plaintiff, relying on Bray v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pa., 917 F.2d 130 (4th Cir. 1990), argues that the ICC regulations do not preempt state regulation of underinsured coverage. We agree. It is not the ICC regulations that preempt the plaintiff from underinsured motorist coverage. It is the statutes of this state which do not provide for underinsured motorist coverage in this case.

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 S.E.2d 696, 333 N.C. 338, 1993 N.C. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-american-national-fire-insurance-nc-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack