§

Insurance Co. v. Webb

10 N.C. App. 672 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)
Insurance Co. v. Webb

5 Citing cases

  1. Newell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

    334 N.C. 391 (N.C. 1993)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding as a matter of law that the unlicensed driver could not have had a reasonable belief he was entitled to use his father's vehicle when his license was revoked and his parents had expressly forbidden him from using his father's vehicle

    Neither do the cases relied on by plaintiff support this argument. The cases are Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., 283 N.C. 87, 194 S.E.2d 834 (1973); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 261 N.C. 285, 134 S.E.2d 654 (1964); and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Webb, 10 N.C. App. 672, 179 S.E.2d 803 (1971). It is true that in all of these cases the courts refused to apply exclusionary provisions in insurance policies which conflicted with mandatory minimum coverage requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act. But in all the cases the courts first determined that the Financial Responsibility Act afforded mandatory coverage to the tortfeasor.

  2. Aetna Cas. Surety v. Penn. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.

    316 N.C. 368 (N.C. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    In Aetna Cas. and Surety Co. v. Penn. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 316 N.C. 368, 341 S.E.2d 548 (N.C. 1986), an individual named Bell borrowed and wrecked an automobile owned by a car agency, Imports of High Point, Inc.

    Thus, plaintiffs' argument that permissive use exempts Bell from liability for compensation to Penn for the damage to the car is not relevant to the controversy arising on the facts before us. Imports could sue Bell for negligently damaging the Mercedes. Cf. Insurance Co. v. Webb, 10 N.C. App. 672, 179 S.E.2d 803 (insurance company recovered from driver for damages paid to third party). See also General Accident Fire Life Assur. Corp. v. Wyble, 144 So.2d 114 (La.App. 1962); Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Munson, 292 Minn. 141, 193 N.W.2d 476 (1972); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Brooks, 60 Ohio App.2d 37, 395 N.E.2d 494 (1977).

  3. Odum v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

    401 S.E.2d 87 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 15 times

    Any motor vehicle liability policy may provide that the insured shall reimburse the insurance carrier for any payment the insurance carrier would not have been obligated to make under the terms of the policy except for the provision of this Article. See Insurance Co. v. Webb, 10 N.C. App. 672, 179 S.E.2d 803 (1971). We note that the insurance policy at issue in this case was not included in the record and defendant Nationwide has not pleaded this clause in any counterclaim for recoupment.

  4. Wright v. Wright

    47 N.C. App. 367 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    "However, rather than [dismiss] the appeal, we have elected to treat it as a petition for certiorari, allow it and consider the appeal on its merits." Insurance Co. v. Webb, 10 N.C. App. 672, 673, 179 S.E.2d 803 (1971). We have examined all of plaintiff's arguments and find one to be dispositive.

  5. Ormond v. Crampton

    16 N.C. App. 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 24 times

    However, rather than dismissing the appeal, we have elected to treat it as a petition for certiorari, allow it, and consider the appeal on its merits. Insurance Co. v. Webb, 10 N.C. App. 672, 179 S.E.2d 803 (1971). Plaintiff's first assignment of error concerns exclusion of testimony by plaintiff and witness Broadway as to statements made by defendant, which, plaintiff argues, tend to show hostile feelings of the defendant toward the plaintiff.