{ "id": 8524290, "name": "ARTHUR BENNETT MANNING and wife, LUGENE MANNING v. CLARENCE ERNEST FLETCHER, JR. and NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Manning v. Fletcher", "decision_date": "1991-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 907SC150", "first_page": "392", "last_page": "401", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 N.C. App. 392" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "24 ALR3d 1969", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2545596, 2540340, 2540374, 2537916, 2545535 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0270-02", "/nc/328/0270-01", "/nc/328/0270-05", "/nc/328/0270-04", "/nc/328/0270-03" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527036 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522074 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 S.E.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26", "parenthetical": "quoting Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 1, 5, 367 S.E.2d 372, 375 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2487753 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296", "parenthetical": "quoting Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 1, 5, 367 S.E.2d 372, 375 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 761", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "763" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485985 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 4, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(f)(l)(c)" }, { "page": "(g)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(j)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "857" }, { "page": "855" }, { "page": "857" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486785 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" }, { "page": "515" }, { "page": "515" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "773" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.C. App. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525725 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/91/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 619, "char_count": 19424, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.048884247681873e-07, "percentile": 0.9371241334919527 }, "sha256": "68d5fcef2c2baf752335068ffde6e80aeefd83514c36c0c148ab5baf06345320", "simhash": "1:dc3d1572d6b6af88", "word_count": 2927 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:04.252791+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Wells and Johnson concur." ], "parties": [ "ARTHUR BENNETT MANNING and wife, LUGENE MANNING v. CLARENCE ERNEST FLETCHER, JR. and NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThe question presented by the case below is whether, upon remand from our Supreme Court, the trial court properly calculated the amount due plaintiff Arthur Manning under defendant\u2019s insurance policy providing underinsured motorist coverage. Finding the court erred in calculating the amount due, we reverse the trial court.\nPlaintiff Arthur Manning was injured in an automobile accident on 13 March 1985. He suffered severe physical injuries, including complete loss of bladder and sexual function. In March 1986 Arthur and his wife Lugene Manning (the Mannings) initiated an action against defendant Clarence Fletcher, alleging that Fletcher negligently drove his automobile into Arthur Manning\u2019s path while Manning was driving his employer\u2019s truck. The Mannings\u2019 complaint included a claim for loss of consortium. Manning\u2019s employer was insured by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau). Under a business auto policy, Farm Bureau provided underinsured motorist coverage up to $100,000. Under a separate policy, Farm Bureau provided workers\u2019 compensation insurance. In July 1987 the Mannings\u2019 lawsuit was converted to a declaratory judgment action, with Farm Bureau being added as a party-defendant. The separate interests of Farm Bureau as workers\u2019 compensation carrier and as underinsured motorist carrier were represented by separate counsel. In the final pretrial order, the parties entered into stipulations, which can be summarized, in pertinent part, as follows:\nAs a result of the collision, Arthur Manning\u2019s damages are not less than $100,000;\nAt the time of the accident, Fletcher had in effect a policy of liability insurance issued by State Farm Insurance Company [State Farm] which provided coverage of $25,000 per person, $50,000 per occurrence;\nFarm Bureau\u2019s policy to Manning\u2019s employer provided underinsurance motorist coverage to Manning in the stated amount of $100,000, in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21.\nFarm Bureau\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation policy provided disability and medical benefits of $59,000 to Manning, with the North Carolina Industrial Commission having awarded that amount to Manning.\nThe case was heard without a jury. On 26 August 1987, the trial court entered judgment making findings of fact and the following pertinent conclusions of law:\n4. The $25,000.00 paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company to the plaintiffs and the subsequent distribution to North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, subject to attorneys fees for legal services rendered to North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company by plaintiffs\u2019 counsel in the amount of $8,333.33 is agreed upon by the parties without the necessity of order by this Court and is not to be considered further in this declaratory judgment.\n5. That North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, underinsured motorist carrier, is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the difference between the stated limit of the underinsured motorist coverage in its policy of $100,000.00 and the limit of the liability insurance paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company on behalf of the defendant, Fletcher, in the amount of $25,000.00; that North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, as underinsured motorist carrier, is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the sum of $75,000.00 pursuant to its policy and the North Carolina Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-279.21 (b)(4).\n6. That North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is not entitled to reduce its underinsured motorist coverage to the plaintiffs in the amount of $75,000.00 because of benefits paid to the plaintiff, Arthur Bennett Manning, pursuant to the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act; that such reduction is not permitted by either N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-279.21 (b) (4) or N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-279.21 (e) of the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act.\n7. That North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, as workers compensation carrier, is entitled to subrogation against the proceeds of the underinsured motorist coverage afforded by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, as the underinsured motorist carrier, up to $34,000.00, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-10.2 et seq.\n8. That the Nash County Superior Court has authority, in its discretion, to distribute the proceeds of the underinsured motorist coverage to be paid by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company in the amount of $75,000.00 between the plaintiffs, the employer and the North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-10.2 (j).\n9. That the underinsured motorist insurance coverage in the amount of $75,000.00 should be paid by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, underinsured motorist insurer to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs are entitled to $41,000.00 of said proceeds free of any claim or lien of any party to this action; that the plaintiffs are to retain the balance of the proceeds in the amounts of $34,000.00, until such time as the Court, in its discretion, distributes this amount between the plaintiffs and North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier.\n10. That the Nash County Superior Court cannot exercise its discretion in distributing the balance of $34,000.00 between the plaintiffs and North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, without further hearing as to the present physical and economic condition of the plaintiff, Arthur Bennett Manning; that a subsequent hearing should be calendared, with notice to plaintiffs and North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, to determine the distribution of the balance of $34,000.00 between the parties.\nThe defendants appealed the judgment of 26 August 1987 to this Court, which affirmed the trial court on the issue of not permitting Farm Bureau to reduce its underinsured motorist coverage because of workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid to plaintiff Arthur Manning. Manning v. Fletcher, 91 N.C. App. 393, 398, 371 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1988). Our Supreme Court granted discretionary review and reversed this Court, holding that the statute permits reduction of the underinsured motorist coverage by the amounts paid as workers\u2019 compensation benefits. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial division for further proceedings. Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513, 518, 379 S.E.2d 854, 857 (1989).\nNoting that our Supreme Court had not decided whether the \u201c \u2018amounts paid\u2019 by the workers\u2019 compensation carrier are determined before the workers\u2019 compensation carrier receives reimbursement from the tortfeasor\u2019s liability carrier or after the workers\u2019 compensation carrier receives such reimbursement,\u201d the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to rehear the case \u201cfor the purpose of calculating the [amount] of underinsured motorist coverage owed to [plaintiff Arthur Manning] under the Farm Bureau policy.\u201d The Court denied that petition \u201cwithout prejudice to any rights plaintiffs may have to argue before the trial division the proper calculation of the amounts due them.\u201d\nOn remand, the trial court, on 15 December 1989, entered a judgment finding:\n4. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company/Worker\u2019s Compensation Carrier paid $59,000.00 in worker\u2019s compensation benefits to Arthur Bennett Manning, and . . . was subsequently reimbursed in the amount of $25,000.00 from proceeds received by Manning from State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, liability carrier, so that the amount of worker\u2019s compensation paid by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company/Worker\u2019s Compensation Carrier not reimbursed by the proceeds of liability insurance is $34,000.00.\n5. The limit of liability of the Farm Bureau policy requires that its $100,000.00 of underinsured motorist coverage be reduced by the aggregate of the $25,000.00 of Fletcher\u2019s liability coverage paid to Manning and the $59,000.00 of worker\u2019s compensation benefits paid to Manning.\nand concluding:\n2. Pursuant to the limit of liability language contained in the Farm Bureau policy and G.S. 20-279.21(b)(4), Farm Bureau\u2019s $100,000.00 underinsured motorist coverage liability must be reduced by the $25,000.00 of liability coverage paid to Plaintiffs. Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513, 515 (1989).\n3. Pursuant to the limit of liability clause of the policy, Farm Bureau\u2019s $100,000.00 limit of underinsured motorist coverage liability must also be reduced by the $59,000.00 of worker\u2019s compensation paid to the Plaintiffs.\nThe trial court then ordered that the maximum amount required to be paid by Farm Bureau as underinsured motorist carrier is $16,000.00, and further ordered:\n[PJursuant to G.S. 97-10.2(j), and upon the worker\u2019s compensation carrier\u2019s waiver of hearing as to the apportionment of the $16,000.00 heretofore adjudged owing, and in light of the amount already received by the Worker\u2019s Compensation carrier, the Court determines that no portion of the $16,000.00 shall be paid to North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company/Worker\u2019s Compensation Carrier in connection with its claimed subrogation lien pursuant to the Worker\u2019s Compensation Act, but that the entire $16,000.00 shall be apportioned to the Plaintiff Arthur Bennett Manning.\nOn appeal, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by reducing the amount of underinsured motorist coverage owed to plaintiff Arthur Manning by $59,000.00 rather than $34,000.00. The first figure represents the total amount paid to or on behalf of Manning as workers\u2019 compensation benefits. The second figure represents the \u201cnet\u201d outlay of workers\u2019 compensation benefits after reduction by the $25,000.00 received from the tort-feasor\u2019s liability insurer. We agree that the amount of underinsured motorist coverage owed to plaintiff Manning should be reduced by only the \u201cnet\u201d workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid, $34,000.00.\nThe proper calculation of the amount owed to Arthur Manning is determined by the interaction of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2 (1985), N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 (1985), Farm Bureau\u2019s insurance contract with Arthur Manning\u2019s employer, and applicable case law.\nThe pertinent language in Farm Bureau\u2019s auto insurance contract reads as follows:\n1. Regardless of the number of covered autos, insureds, claims made or vehicles involved in the accident, the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one accident is the limit of Uninsured Motorists Insurance shown in the declarations.\n2. Any amount payable under this insurance shall be reduced by:\na. All sums paid or payable under any workers\u2019 compensation, disability benefits or similar law exclusive of nonoccupational disability benefits and\nb. All sums paid by or for anyone who is legally responsible, including all sums paid under the policy\u2019s LIABILITY Insurance.\nIn Manning v. Fletcher, 324 N.C. 513, 379 S.E.2d 854 (1989), our Supreme Court construed the operation of \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) and (e) upon the facts presented by the plaintiffs\u2019 declaratory judgment action. The Court noted that, pursuant to subsection (b)(4),\n[t]he payment to plaintiff was therefore limited to the difference between Fletcher\u2019s liability coverage of $25,000 and the $100,000 limit of Farm Bureau\u2019s underinsured motorist coverage as specified in the policy. Plaintiff and Farm Bureau agree that the maximum amount of Farm Bureau\u2019s liability under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) is $75,000.\nFarm Bureau argues that, under the limit of liability provision in its underinsured motorist coverage policy with plaintiff\u2019s employer, the $75,000 may be further reduced by the $59,000 paid to plaintiff as workers\u2019 compensation benefits, for a total payment to plaintiff of $16,000.\nManning, 324 N.C. at 515, 379 S.E.2d at 855. The Court then held that \u201cN.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(e) permits an insurance carrier to reduce the underinsured motorist coverage liability in a business auto insurance policy by amounts paid to the insured as workers\u2019 compensation benefits.\u201d Id. at 518, 379 S.E.2d at 857. The language of the Court\u2019s holding left unresolved the issue of whether amounts paid as workers\u2019 compensation benefits were to be calculated before or after the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier has been reimbursed by insurance proceeds from the tort-feasor\u2019s liability insurance carrier.\nAs appellate reports have frequently noted, the \u201cpurpose of this State\u2019s compulsory motor vehicle insurance laws, of which the underinsured motorist provisions are a part, was and is the protection of innocent victims who may be injured by financially irresponsible motorists.\u201d Proctor v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 221, 224, 376 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1989). In the case below, the plaintiff, as the parties stipulated, suffered serious injuries, permanent disability, and economic loss which amounted to damages of \u201cnot less than $100,000.00.\u201d Based on the parties\u2019 stipulations the trial court found that the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered a final award for the plaintiff of $59,000.00 in workers\u2019 compensation benefits, which was paid by Farm Bureau as workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier. The trial court also found that the\n$25,000.00 paid to the plaintiffs by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company [Clarence Fletcher\u2019s liability insurance carrier] is subject to the workers\u2019 compensation subrogation lien of North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, and by agreement of the parties, is to be immediately disbursed to North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, except for the payment of $8,333.33 to plaintiffs\u2019 counsel for legal services rendered on behalf of North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-10.2 (f)(2) .... (Emphasis added.)\nAs workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier, Farm Bureau\u2019s net payment to Arthur Manning is $34,000 ($59,000 paid in benefits reduced by the $25,000 paid to Farm Bureau by State Farm, Fletcher\u2019s carrier). As underinsured motorist insurance carrier, Farm Bureau\u2019s limit of liability to Manning is $75,000 (the contractual limit of $100,000 less the $25,000 paid by State Farm). If the $75,000 limit is reduced by the net payment of $34,000 in workers\u2019 compensation benefits, plaintiff Arthur Manning is owed $41,000 in underin-sured motorist coverage. Thus, he will recover his stipulated damages of $100,000 in the form of $59,000 in workers\u2019 compensation benefits and $41,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. There will be no double recovery for the same injuries. Calculating the reduction of underinsured motorist coverage on the basis of net workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid is consistent with the provisions of \u00a7 20-279.21 of the Financial Responsibility Act, which \u201c \u2018is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of providing coverage for damages to injured parties caused by insured motorists with liability coverage not sufficient to provide complete compensation for the damages.\u2019 \u201d Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 324 N.C. 289, 296, 378 S.E.2d 21, 26 (1989) (quoting Silvers v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 1, 5, 367 S.E.2d 372, 375 (1988)).\nThe defendants contend that the \u201c$25,000 repaid to the workers\u2019 compensation carrier pursuant to the pretrial order was not required by law to be so paid .... [T]he fact that Plaintiffs voluntarily paid the $25,000 of liability funds back to their workers\u2019 compensation carrier\u201d should not affect the reduction of plaintiff Manning\u2019s underinsured motorist coverage by the $59,000 of workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid prior to the $25,000 reimbursement.\nDefendants\u2019 argument mischaracterizes the right of workers\u2019 compensation insurance carriers to reimbursement in the event of a judgment against or settlement with a third-party tort-feasor. In the event of such a judgment or settlement the employer is entitled, subject to court costs and attorney fees, to reimbursement \u201cfor all benefits by way of compensation or medical treatment expense paid or to be paid by the employer under award of the Industrial Commission.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2(f)(l)(c) (1985). \u201cThe insurance carrier affording coverage to the employer under this Chapter shall be subrogated to all rights and liabilities of the employer . . . .\u201d \u00d1.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2(g) (1985) (emphasis added). The mandatory nature of the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier\u2019s lien on a recovery from the third-party tort-feasor is not altered by the discretionary authority of the trial judge, pursuant to \u00a7 97-10.2(j) to apportion the recovery between the employee and the insurance carrier, if that recovery is inadequate to satisfy the insurance carrier\u2019s lien.\nFinally, the defendants\u2019 characterization of the reimbursement as voluntary overlooks their stipulation to the following agreement:\nState Farm Insurance Company and Arthur Bennett Manning recognize the subrogation lien of North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, workers\u2019 compensation carrier, in the $25,000.00 to be paid to Arthur Bennett Manning by State Farm Insurance Company and agree that said payment of $25,000.00 shall be disbursed pursuant to order of the Nash County Superior Court acting pursuant to N.C.G.S. 97-10.2(j) in the following amounts: $16,666.67 to North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and $8,333.33 to Henson, Fuerst & Willey, P.A., attorneys.\nThe position taken by the defendants in their brief, if adopted by this Court, would promote litigation rather than settlement of subrogation claims.\nFor the reasons stated above we reverse the trial court and hold that the underinsured motorist coverage applicable to plaintiff Arthur Manning should be reduced by $34,000 rather than $59,000. The cause is remanded to the trial court for disbursement of $41,000, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2(j), consistent with Allen v. Rupard, 100 N.C. App. 490, 397 S.E.2d 330 (1990), disc. review allowed, 328 N.C. 270, 400 S.E.2d 449 (1991).\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "COZORT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph G. Willey, III, P.A., for plaintiff appellants.", "Poyner & Spruill, by Ernie K. Murray, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARTHUR BENNETT MANNING and wife, LUGENE MANNING v. CLARENCE ERNEST FLETCHER, JR. and NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 907SC150\n(Filed 2 April 1991)\nInsurance \u00a7 69 (NCI3d)\u2014 underinsured motorist coverage \u2014 reduction for net workers\u2019 compensation payments\nIn reducing underinsured motorist coverage liability in a business automobile insurance policy by amounts paid to the insured as workers\u2019 compensation benefits, the amounts paid as workers\u2019 compensation benefits are to be calculated after the workers\u2019 compensation insurance carrier has been reimbursed by insurance proceeds from the tortfeasor\u2019s liability insurance carrier.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7\u00a7 316, 320.\nUninsured motorist coverage: validity and effect of policy provision purporting to reduce coverage by amount paid under workmen\u2019s compensation law. 24 ALR3d 1969.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Judgment entered 15 December 1989 by Judge Richard B. Allsbrook in NASH County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 November 1990.\nRalph G. Willey, III, P.A., for plaintiff appellants.\nPoyner & Spruill, by Ernie K. Murray, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0392-01", "first_page_order": 422, "last_page_order": 431 }