Conyard v. Life & Casualty Insurance
Badie H. Conyard v. Life and Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee.
Opinion of the Court
*507 Stacy, C. J.
Is a private Chevrolet one and one-half ton motor driven truck a “private motor driven car” within the meaning of the policy in suit? The case was made to turn on the answer to this question in the court below, and we are disposed to agree with his Honor that it is.
The term “motor driven car” is broad enough to include a motor driven truck, and we cannot say a narrower interpretation was intended by the parties. The rule of construction is, that when an insurance policy is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, the one more favorable to the assured will be adopted. “The policy having been prepared by the insurers, it should be construed most strongly against them.”
Bank v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S., 673 ;
Jolley v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 269 , 154 S. E., 400 ;
Underwood v. Ins. Co., 185 N. C., 538 , 117 S. E., 790 .
There was nothing said in Lloyd v. Ins. Co., 200 N. C., 722 , 158 S. E., 386 , Anderson v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 72 , 147 S. E., 693 , or Gant v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 122 , 147 S. E., 740 , which militates against the position here taken.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Seaford v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
- Carter v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
- Mitchell v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
- LaFon v. Continental Casualty Co.
- Mitchell v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
- Gray v. North American Co. for Life, Accident & Health Insurance
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.