{
  "id": 8527433,
  "name": "HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM POOLE and BARBARA POOLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harleysville Insurance v. Poole",
  "decision_date": "1992-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 9118SC652",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.C. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "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": "23 ALR4th 12",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "382 S.E.2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "763"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2492574
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 S.E.2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "232"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522139
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "324"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E.2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569483
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "543"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 S.E.2d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "473"
        },
        {
          "page": "473"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520789
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "367"
        },
        {
          "page": "367"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 ALR4th 12",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 6751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.773,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505553412573475
    },
    "sha256": "e87c3c3838a90ead6d7a53c2e30ac7fa6852629a2187ff012a5c84ceec7005f3",
    "simhash": "1:a30c5176117917d8",
    "word_count": 1056
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:31.872261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges PARKER and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM POOLE and BARBARA POOLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nHarleysville Insurance Company (Insurance Company) appeals from the entry of summary judgment for William Poole and Barbara Poole.\nOn 22 February 1990, Insurance Company issued to William and Barbara Poole (Insureds) a personal automobile policy. The policy of insurance insured two vehicles, a 1986 Ford and a 1981 Chevrolet, and on the Declaration page of the policy provided uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) coverage of $50,000 for each person and $100,000 for each accident. There was a $32.00 premium charged for the UM/UIM coverage, or $16.00 for each vehicle. The policy of insurance contained in the UM/UIM section of the policy included the following \u201cLimit of Liability\u201d provision:\nThe limit of bodily injury liability shown in the Declarations for each person for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury, including damages for care, loss of services or death, sustained by any one person in any one auto accident.\nSubject to this limit for each person, the limit of bodily injury liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury resulting from any one accident. The limit of property damage liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability or all damages to all property resulting from any one accident. This is the most we will pay for bodily injury and property damage regardless of the number of:\n1. Insureds;\n2. Claims made;\n3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or\n4. Vehicles involved in the accident.\nOn 21 June 1990, while the above policy was in effect, Barbara Poole was operating the 1986 Ford automobile which was occupied by William Poole. The Ford was involved in an accident with a vehicle operated by Donna K. English. Insureds contend that the accident was the fault of Donna English and that her vehicle was uninsured as defined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3). Insureds filed a claim with Insurance Company for injuries they sustained in the accident, claiming that they were entitled to \u201cstack\u201d the uninsured coverage for a total limit of liability in the amount of $100,000 per person and $200,000 per accident.\nInsurance Company filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that \u201cstacking\u201d of the uninsured coverages was not required by statute and in fact prohibited by the language of the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted summary judgment for Insureds ordering that \u201cthe policy of insurance ... affords [Insureds] uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).\u201d\nThe issues presented are whether (I) the statutes in North Carolina require intrapolicy \u201cstacking\u201d of uninsured coverage; and (II) if not, whether the policy of insurance permitted such stacking.\nI\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3), the North Carolina statute governing uninsured motorists insurance, is silent on the issue of stacking, either interpolicy or intrapolicy. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (1991). Furthermore, the stacking language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) is not incorporated into N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3). See id. Our courts have construed N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) as requiring interpolicy stacking \u201cwhere [uninsured] coverage is provided by two or more policies, each providing the mandatory minimum coverage.\u201d Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Herndon, 79 N.C. App. 365, 367, 339 S.E.2d 472, 473 (1986); Moore v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. Group, 270 N.C. 532, 543, 155 S.E.2d 128, 136 (1967). To the extent the coverage provided by multiple liability policies \u201cexceeds the mandatory minimum coverage required by the statute,\u201d stacking is governed by the insurance contract. Government, 79 N.C. App. at 367, 339 S.E.2d at 473. In Hamilton v. Travelers Indem. Co., 77 N.C. App. 318, 324, 335 S.E.2d 228, 232 (1985), this Court held that intrapolicy stacking is not required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) and is therefore controlled by unambiguous policy language.\nInsureds argue that Hamilton \u201cwas incorrectly decided and was implicitly overruled\u201d by Sutton v. Aetna Insurance, 325 N.C. 259, 382 S.E.2d 759 (1989). We disagree. Sutton held that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) entitled Sherry S. Sutton, a named insured, to stack underinsured motorist coverages, both interpolicy and in-trapolicy, and that policy language to the contrary was invalid. Id. at 265, 382 S.E.2d at 763. Sutton did not explicitly or implicitly overrule either Moore, Government, or Hamilton. Furthermore, we read the holding in Sutton as applicable only to underinsured coverages. We do not read Sutton as holding that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) requires the stacking of uninsured motorist coverages. Accordingly, Hamilton remains valid law binding on this Court, and intrapolicy stacking of uninsured motorist coverage is controlled by the language of the policy of insurance.\nII\nThe policy of insurance issued to Insureds is unambiguous stating that the limit of liability is that reflected on the Declarations page \u201cregardless of the number of . . . [v]ehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations.\u201d The limits of liability shown on the Declarations page is $50,000 for each person and $100,000 for each accident. Accordingly, the order of the trial court must be reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Insurance Company.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges PARKER and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Paul D. Coates and Douglas E. Wright, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Bretzmann, Bruner & Aldridge, by Raymond A. Bretzmann, for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM POOLE and BARBARA POOLE\nNo. 9118SC652\n(Filed 4 August 1992)\nInsurance \u00a7 514 (NCI4th)\u2014 uninsured motorist insurance \u2014 intrapolicy stacking prohibited by policy\nIntrapolicy stacking of uninsured motorist coverages is not required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3). Therefore, intrapolicy stacking of uninsured motorist coverages on two automobiles covered by insureds\u2019 policy was controlled by the language of the insurance policy and was prohibited where the policy provided that liability was limited to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident \u201cregardless of the number of ... [v]ehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations.\u201d\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 326.\nCombining or \u201cstacking\u201d uninsured motorist coverages provided in single policy applicable to different vehicles of individual insured. 23 ALR4th 12.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from judgment entered 26 April 1991 in GUILFORD County Superior Court by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 1992.\nNichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Paul D. Coates and Douglas E. Wright, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBretzmann, Bruner & Aldridge, by Raymond A. Bretzmann, for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 262,
  "last_page_order": 265
}