Fanroth v. Byrne

2 Citing cases

  1. Mills v. Insurance Co.

    187 S.E. 581 (N.C. 1936)   Cited 9 times

    Its defense is, that plaintiff's disability was not, and is not, the result of bodily injury or disease "occurring and originating after the issuance of said policies." Denial of coverage ought not to be confused with the defense of invalidity. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 252 N.Y. 447. The defendant is entitled to be heard on the issue of coverage and the genuineness of plaintiff's claim. New trial.

  2. Hooks v. Insurance Co.

    259 S.E.2d 567 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577, 183 S.E. 743; Jolley v. Ins. Co., 199 N.C. 269, 154 S.E. 400; Scarborough v. Ins. Co., 171 N.C. 353, 88 S.E. 482. To contend for a limitation of the coverage clause in a policy of insurance is not to contest its validity. . . .Denial of coverage ought not to be confused with the defense of invalidity. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 252 N.Y. 447. Id. at 441-42, 187 S.E. at 582-83.