TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Proffitt Mercantile Co. v. State Mutual Fire Insurance

Proffitt Mercantile Company v. State Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

Proffitt Mercantile Co. v. State Mut. Fire Ins., 97 S.E. 476 (N.C. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 4, 1918
Judges
Claek
Citations
97 S.E. 476176 N.C. 5451918 N.C. LEXIS 295
Headnotes
1. Insurance, Fire — Denial of Liability — Proof of Loss — Waiver. . Tbe insurer’s denial of liability upon its fire insurance policy is a waiver of its right to require tbe proof of loss therein specified. 2. Insurance, Fire — Title — Encumbrances — Payment — Evidence—One Inference, Verdict Directing — Instructions. Where the policy of fire insurance specifies that the title to the property destroyed is in the insured, testimony of the insured that there had been a chattel mortgage thereon, but it had been paid off and discharged before the issuance of the policy, permits but one inference to be drawn, if found to be true by the jury, and an instruction to that effect is a correct one.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from Cline, J., at June Special Term, 1918, of Aveky.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Claek

Claek, 0. J.

This action is to recover for loss by fire upon two insurance policies, one for $300 on fixtures and $1,000 on stock of goods. Tb.e loss by fire and tbe value of tbe goods are not in controversy. . Tbe defendant in its brief abandons all exceptions except 7 and 8. Exception 7 is because tbe court refused to nonsuit tbe plaintiff because of tbe failure of tbe plaintiff to file claim for loss and because tbe property was mortgaged, and Exception .8 is because tbe court instructed tbe jury “If you believe tbe evidence in this case to answer tbe issue ‘Yes/ ”

and to assess tbe plaintiff’s recovery at three-fourths of tbe fair, reasonable value of tbe goods and fixtures covered by these policies that were lost and destroyed in tbe fire, provided the amount shall not exceed $1,000 on tbe goods and merchandise and $300 on tbe fixtures.

Tbe uncontradicted testimony of tbe plaintiff is that when be asked for a blank to make out tbe proof of claim tbe agents of tbe defendant told him it was not necessary to do anything, and tbe company did not send him any blank or any letter asking him to make out proof of claim. Tbe defendant denied liability and refused to pay tbe loss. This is a waiver of tbe right to demand proof of loss and the denial of liability dispenses with tbe necessity of filing such proof.

Gerringer v. Ins. Co., 133 N. C., 407 ;

Parker v. Ins. Co., 143 N. C., 343 ;

Lowe v. Fidelity Co., 170 N. C., 446.

There is no evidence of a chattel mortgage on any of tbe property either at tbe time tbe policy was taken out or at tbe time of tbe fire.

*546 The only evidence on the point is on the part of the plaintiff, who testified that’ there had been a mortgage on the property, but it had been paid off and discharged before the policy of insurance was taken out. There was but one inference which could be drawn from the testimony, if found to be true by the jury, and the court instructed the jury correctly. Cau ley v. Dunn, 167 N. C., 32 .

No error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11933: 11938: 11948: 11952: 11953: 11955: 11956: 11961: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commercial Solvents, Inc. v. Johnson69 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. 1952)
  2. Gorham v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance200 S.E. 5 (N.C. 1938)
  3. Hawkins v. M & J Finance Corp.77 S.E.2d 669 (N.C. 1953)
  4. Rhodes v. Raxter87 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. 1955)
  5. Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co.50 S.E.2d 290 (N.C. 1948)
  6. Millikan v. Simmons93 S.E.2d 59 (N.C. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Commercial Carving Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance191 F. Supp. 753 (M.D.N.C. 1961)
  2. Millikan v. Simmons93 S.E.2d 59 (N.C. 1956)
  3. Rhodes v. Raxter87 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. 1955)
  4. Hawkins v. M & J Finance Corp.77 S.E.2d 669 (N.C. 1953)
  5. Commercial Solvents, Inc. v. Johnson69 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. 1952)
  6. Zibelin v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance Co.50 S.E.2d 290 (N.C. 1948)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gerringer v. N.C. Home Ins., 45 S.E. 773 (N.C. 1903) 47
Parker v. Ins. Co., 55 S.E. 717 (N.C. 1906) 16
Cauley v. Dunn, 83 S.E. 16 (N.C. 1914) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list