{
  "id": 8521932,
  "name": "ELLA RUTH BAKER, Plaintiff/Appellant v. INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Independent Fire Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1991-07-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 903SC689",
  "first_page": "521",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 521"
    }
  ],
  "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": "346 S.E.2d 496",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779283
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "650 F.Supp. 38",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3958567
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/650/0038-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3572,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.703,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.265642701469774e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5115458468814205
    },
    "sha256": "4d3b52ef4453478c3e4af1b068550281eeebb7260dde0b73db0e1e3752229165",
    "simhash": "1:6c5f12947735d870",
    "word_count": 578
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELLA RUTH BAKER, Plaintiff/Appellant v. INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals the dismissal by summary judgment of her action under an insurance policy for fire damage done to her house and personal property on 12 April 1989. Her action was dismissed because before filing suit plaintiff refused to submit to an examination under oath concerning the circumstances of the fire as defendant requested and the policy terms required. Since the record does not contain any assignments of error, we are only required to examine the face of the record for error; but waiving that deficiency it is obvious that the court did not err in dismissing the action, and we affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s policy (and by virtue of the enactment of G.S. 58-44-15 every other fire insurance policy issued in this state) contains the following provisions: \u201cNo action can be. brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with ...\u201d and your duties after loss are \u201cf. as often as we reasonably require ... (3) submit to examination under oath.\u201d Compliance with these and companion provisions has been held to be a condition precedent to suing on a fire policy. Huggins v. Hartford Insurance Co., 650 F.Supp. 38 (E.D.N.C. 1986); Chavis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 317 N.C. 683, 346 S.E.2d 496 (1986).\nThe materials of record, including defendant\u2019s requests for admission that plaintiff did not object or respond to within the time allowed by Rule 36, N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, establish the following uncontradicted facts: On 21 July 1989 defendant in writing requested plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath on Tuesday, 8 August 1989, at the office of her lawyer; on 1 August 1989 plaintiff, through her counsel, refused this request and filed the action on 23 October 1989. These facts establish as a matter of law that plaintiff did not comply with a condition precedent to bringing suit on the policy and that the dismissal of her action was proper.\nIn arguing otherwise, plaintiff points only to the following: Her affidavit, which states in effect that she thought being examined under oath before suit was filed would not accomplish anything and that she was willing to be examined after suit was filed; and counsel\u2019s letter to the insurance company dated 1 August 1989 stating that plaintiff would not submit to an examination before suit, but would be willing to be examined under oath later after suit was filed. These materials support, rather than discredit, the dismissal order. The policy required plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath when reasonably requested before suit was filed and she refused to be so examined. Her willingness to be examined after suit was filed did not meet the requirement.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fitch, Wynn & Associates, by Reginald Scott, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Yates, McLamb & Weyher, by R. Scott Brown and Andrew A. Vanore, III, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELLA RUTH BAKER, Plaintiff/Appellant v. INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee\nNo. 903SC689\n(Filed 16 July 1991)\nInsurance \u00a7 122 (NCI3d)\u2014 fire insurance \u2014 refusal of examination under oath \u2014 summary judgment for defendant\nThe trial court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant on a fire insurance claim where plaintiff refused to be examined under oath until after suit was filed. Plaintiff\u2019s policy required her to submit to an examination under oath when reasonably requested.\nAm Jur 2d, Insurance \u00a7 1364.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order entered 8 February 1990 by Judge Thomas Watts in PITT County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 May 1991.\nFitch, Wynn & Associates, by Reginald Scott, for plaintiff appellant.\nYates, McLamb & Weyher, by R. Scott Brown and Andrew A. Vanore, III, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0521-01",
  "first_page_order": 551,
  "last_page_order": 552
}