{ "id": 8527486, "name": "RONNIE LYNN BETTS v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES", "name_abbreviation": "Betts v. Great American Insurance", "decision_date": "1994-04-05", "docket_number": "No. 9311DC675", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "262", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "114 N.C. App. 260" } ], "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": "86 ALR2d 937", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 ALR4th 387", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5309385 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 S.E.2d 138", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "140" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5309385 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447-48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0444-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 318, "char_count": 5626, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2055917159649076 }, "sha256": "24e8e116d23b1b58fb36cc2c282141ba939db9cab2533a38c9e99f9bb18ddda5", "simhash": "1:736da0027f929a76", "word_count": 908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:59.295429+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Wells and Orr concur." ], "parties": [ "RONNIE LYNN BETTS v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nOn 31 October 1991 plaintiff, Ronnie Lynn Betts, was driving a dump truck used in his family\u2019s farming operation and titled in the name of one of his parents. He was involved in an accident and incurred $2,630.52 in medical expenses. He sought payment from defendant, Great American Insurance Company, under his personal automobile insurance policy. When defendant refused coverage, plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Summary judgment was granted for defendant on 27 April 1993. Plaintiff appeals.\nDefendant excluded plaintiff from coverage pursuant to a provision in the policy which states:\nWe do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any person for bodily injury:\n4. Sustained while occupying, or when struck by, any vehicle (other than your covered auto) which is:\na. owned by you; or\nb. furnished for your regular use.\nPlaintiff argues that this provision does not apply because the vehicle in question was not furnished for his regular use.\nThe facts of this case fall squarely under North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Warren, 326 N.C. 444, 390 S.E.2d 138 (1990). In that case, defendant, Dr. Warren, was a medical resident at the East Carolina University School of Medicine in Greenville, North Carolina. While serving an eight-week rotation at Wayne County Memorial Hospital in Goldsboro, North Carolina, Dr. Warren regularly drove between Greenville and Goldsboro in a van owned by the East Area Health Education Agency. She was allowed to use the van only for transportation to and from Goldsboro during this rotation, and she was specifically prohibited from using the van for personal business or pleasure. Occasionally, a medical student would drive the van to Goldsboro and Dr. Warren would ride with another. One day while driving the van, Dr. Warren was involved in an accident in which one of her passengers was injured. The plaintiff insurance company, who had issued Dr. Warren\u2019s personal automobile liability insurance policy, brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the van was \u201cfurnished for [her] regular use,\u201d within the meaning of that policy, thus excluding it from liability coverage. The Supreme Court held that it was.\nThe exclusion clause in Warren applied to liability coverage, while the clause in Betts\u2019s policy applies to medical payments coverage. Nevertheless, the clauses contain identical language, and we use the Warren analysis in determining whether the farm truck was furnished for Betts\u2019s regular use.\nPlaintiff Betts argues that the regular use exclusion does not apply because the dump truck was not furnished for his regular use, as his policy specifies, but rather, for use by the farm. However, in Warren, Dr. Warren used the vehicle solely as an employee, in furtherance of the medical school\u2019s purposes. In fact, she was expressly prohibited from using the van for personal business or pleasure. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found this use to be \u201c[her] regular use.\u201d Following Warren, we decline to construe the phrase \u201cyour use\u201d to mean your personal use, as plaintiff urges.\nPlaintiff further contends that the fact that the vehicle was available to and used by other farm personnel meant that it was not \u201cfurnished for [his] use.\u201d However, in Warren, the van provided for Dr. Warren was occasionally driven by medical students during the rotation. The Court held that the regular use exclusion applied. \u201cUnder the facts and circumstances of this case, for Dr. Warren\u2019s use of the van to have been \u2018regular,\u2019 it was not necessary that the van\u2019s availability be exclusive or permanent.\u201d Warren, 326 N.C. at 447-48, 390 S.E.2d at 140. So long as the insured driver regularly used the vehicle, it is irrelevant that others also used it.\nWe find no basis upon which to distinguish this case from Warren. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s entry of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Orr concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kelly & West, by Johnny C. Chriscoe, Jr. and W. Ty Sawyer, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, by Robert H. Griffin, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RONNIE LYNN BETTS v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES\nNo. 9311DC675\n(Filed 5 April 1994)\nInsurance \u00a7 571 (NCI4th)\u2014 automobile insurance \u2014other vehicle exclusion \u2014 applicable\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant insurance company where plaintiff was injured while driving a dump truck used in his family\u2019s farming operation and titled in the name of one of his parents and defendant denied payment and moved for summary judgment based on a policy provision which excluded coverage for injury sustained while occupying or when struck by any vehicle other than the covered auto which was owned by the insured or furnished for the insured\u2019s regular use. Although plaintiff contended that the dump truck was furnished for use by the farm and not for his regular use, and that the truck was not furnished for his use because it was available to and used by other farm personnel, this case falls squarely under North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Warren, 326 N.C. 444.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 244.\nWhen is automobile furnished or available for regular use within \u201cdrive other car\u201d coverage of automobile liability policy. 8 ALR4th 387.\nExclusion from \u201cdrive other cars\u201d provision of automobile liability insurance policy of other automobile owned, hired, or regularly used by insured or member of his household. 86 ALR2d 937.\nAppeal by plaintiff from summary judgment entered 27 April 1993 by Judge Albert A. Corbett, Jr. in Harnett County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 March 1994.\nKelly & West, by Johnny C. Chriscoe, Jr. and W. Ty Sawyer, for plaintiff-appellant.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, by Robert H. Griffin, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 288, "last_page_order": 290 }