{ "id": 12131925, "name": "PHYLLIS TANT BRAY AND HUSBAND, WILBUR GLOVER BRAY, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Bray v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.", "decision_date": "1994-07-05", "docket_number": "No. 932SC517", "first_page": "438", "last_page": "446", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 N.C. App. 438" } ], "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": "93 ALR2d 1047", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 ALR4th 18", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 ALR4th 632", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "96 ALR3d 804", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552010 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 S.E.2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520789 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 S.E.2d 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff, a member of the first class, injured on his motorcycle may recover under the UIM provision in his automobile/truck policy" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2506105 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plaintiff, a member of the first class, injured on his motorcycle may recover under the UIM provision in his automobile/truck policy" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130-131" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569483 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2531602 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557714 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 S.E.2d 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 N.C. App. 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522334 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/103/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 731", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695400, 4696174, 4696632, 4699005, 4702879 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0731-02", "/nc/316/0731-05", "/nc/316/0731-04", "/nc/316/0731-03", "/nc/316/0731-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521993 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565135 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 S.E.2d 546", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491072, 2489257, 2490993, 2488279, 2491871 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0437-04", "/nc/325/0437-01", "/nc/325/0437-02", "/nc/325/0437-05", "/nc/325/0437-03" ] }, { "cite": "382 S.E.2d 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "763" }, { "page": "765" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2492574 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" }, { "page": "268" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 642", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519967 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 S.E.2d 514", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537537, 2539785, 2542308, 2540999 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0577-01", "/nc/328/0577-02", "/nc/328/0577-03", "/nc/328/0577-04" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 10, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" }, { "page": "47" }, { "page": "47" }, { "page": "49" }, { "page": "51" }, { "page": "51" }, { "page": "51" }, { "page": "50" }, { "page": "50" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2542714 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" }, { "page": "143" }, { "page": "143" }, { "page": "146" }, { "page": "149" }, { "page": "150" }, { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 11, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(g)" }, { "page": "(g)" }, { "page": "(b)(4)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 644, "char_count": 16469, "ocr_confidence": 0.739, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1504563478691431e-07, "percentile": 0.581272885021482 }, "sha256": "c13f6e82565035a104693f93ce4e2be51d6f87eac10e47f560e11263c7d3ff1e", "simhash": "1:810fd52492f704d8", "word_count": 2724 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:18.676868+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "PHYLLIS TANT BRAY AND HUSBAND, WILBUR GLOVER BRAY, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nOn 10 July 1990, plaintiff Phyllis Tant Bray was injured in an accident while driving a 1985 Nissan automobile owned by her husband, plaintiff Wilbur Glover Bray. Mrs. Bray was struck by an automobile driven by Stacy Katherine Gold, an uninsured motorist. It is undisputed that Ms. Gold\u2019s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident.\nThe Brays\u2019 Nissan automobile was insured under a personal auto policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) in Mr. Bray\u2019s name which provided uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident and medical payments coverage of $500. Mr. Bray also had two insurance policies with defendant North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) for his automobile repair business. The two policies, a business auto policy and a garage policy, both provided coverage up to $300,000 per person/per accident.\nPlaintiffs brought an action against Ms. Gold seeking to recover damages for Mrs. Bray\u2019s personal injuries and Mr. Bray\u2019s loss of consortium. Plaintiffs served Allstate and Farm Bureau as their UM carriers pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) and both insurance companies filed answers in Ms. Gold\u2019s name. Allstate then paid Mrs. Bray its $25,000 UM policy limit and its $500 medical payments limit and Mrs. Bray signed a release in favor of Allstate which preserved her right to seek further recovery against Ms. Gold and Farm Bureau. At trial, Farm Bureau stipulated Ms. Gold\u2019s liability and defended solely on the issue of damages. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs awarding $285,000 to Mrs. Bray and $15,000 to Mr. Bray. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and assessed costs against Farm Bureau in the amount of $1,171.62.\nPlaintiffs then brought this action against Farm Bureau which sought recovery of the judgment under the UM provisions in Mr. Bray\u2019s two policies, alleged Farm Bureau committed unfair trade practices, and asked for punitive damages. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment alleging that they are entitled to $274,500.00 plus costs and interest under the UM provisions of Mr. Bray\u2019s two insurance policies. The trial court granted plaintiff\u2019s motion and ruled under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) that this order was a final judgment as to that claim. From this order, Farm Bureau appeals.\nI.\nFarm Bureau first argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for plaintiffs because Mr. Bray\u2019s business auto policy contains a \u201cfamily member/household-owned vehicle\u201d provision which excludes coverage for bodily injury sustained by an insured who is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by the named insured but not insured under the policy. Farm Bureau contends that because of this \u201cfamily member/household-owned vehicle\u201d exclusion, plaintiffs are not covered under the UM section of Farm Bureau\u2019s business auto policy. We disagree.\nIn determining whether coverage is provided by a particular automobile liability insurance policy, \u201ccareful attention must be given to the type of coverage, the relevant statutory provisions, and the terms of the policy.\u201d Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 142, 400 S.E.2d 44, 47, reh\u2019g denied, 328 N.C. 577, 403 S.E.2d 514 (1991); Wiggins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 26, 434 S.E.2d 642 (1993). In the instant case, the type of coverage at issue is UM coverage. The relevant statute at the time of the accident is N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (1989).\nThe UM coverage section of the business auto policy issued by Farm Bureau to Mr. Bray contains the following provisions:\nA. Coverage\n1. We will pay all sums the \u201cinsured\u201d is legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or driver of:\na. an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d because of \u201cbodily injury\u201d sustained by the \u201cinsured\u201d and caused by an \u201caccident,\u201d ....\nB. Who is an insured\n1. You\n2. If you are an individual, any \u201cfamily member.\u201d\nC. Exclusions\nThis coverage does not apply to:\n4. \u201cBodily injury\u201d sustained by you or any \u201cfamily member\u201d while \u201coccupying\u201d or struck by any vehicle owned by you or any \u201cfamily member\u201d that is not a covered \u201cauto.\u201d\nF. Additional Definitions\nThe following are added to the Definitions Section:\n1. \u201cFamily member\u201d means a person related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child.\nWhen a statute is applicable to the terms of an insurance policy, the provisions of the statute become the terms of the policy, as if written into it. If the terms of the statute and the policy conflict, the statute prevails. Sutton v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 325 N.C. 259, 382 S.E.2d 759, reh\u2019g denied, 325 N.C. 437, 384 S.E.2d 546 (1989); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chantos, 293 N.C. 431, 238 S.E.2d 597 (1977). At the time of the accident, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) provided in relevant part:\nFor purposes of this section \u201cpersons insured\u201d means the named insured and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either, while in a motor vehicle or otherwise, and any person who uses with the consent, express or implied, of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies or the personal representative of any of the above or any other person or persons in lawful possession of such motor vehicle.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (1989).\nUnder this statute there are two classes of \u201cpersons insured:\u201d\n(1) the named insured and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of the named insured and relatives of either and (2) any person who uses with the consent, express or implied, of the named insured, the insured vehicle, and a guest in such vehicle.\nCrowder v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 79 N.C. App. 551, 554, 340 S.E.2d 127, 129-30, disc. rev. denied, 316 N.C. 731, 345 S.E.2d 387 (1986); Smith, 328 N.C. at 143, 400 S.E.2d at 47; Busby v. Simmons, 103 N.C. App. 592, 406 S.E.2d 628 (1991). Members of the first class are \u201cpersons insured\u201d for the purposes of UM coverage regardless of whether the insured vehicle is involved in their injuries. Smith, 328 N.C. at 143, 400 S.E.2d at 47. Members of the second class are \u201cpersons insured\u201d only when the insured vehicle is involved in the insured\u2019s injuries. Id. In the instant case, Mrs. Bray is a member of the first class.\nThe purpose of UM and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is to compensate the innocent victims of financially irresponsible motorists. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 283 N.C. 87, 194 S.E.2d 834 (1973). While the purpose of liability coverage is to protect covered persons from their own negligence, UM/UIM coverage is intended to protect covered persons from the negligence of others. Smith, 328 N.C. at 146, 400 S.E.2d at 49. Therefore, liability coverage is essentially vehicle oriented while UM/UIM coverage is essentially person oriented. Harrington v. Stevens, 334 N.C. 586, 434 S.E.2d 212 (1993).\nIn Smith, our Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a \u201cfamily member\u201d or \u201chousehold-owned\u201d vehicle exclusion in a policy\u2019s liability section was effective to limit UIM coverage. Smith, 328 N.C. at 149, 400 S.E.2d at 51. The Court, after noting the difference between liability insurance and UM/UIM insurance, concluded that the \u201cfamily member\u201d or \u201chousehold-owned\u201d exclusion in the liability coverage section is not effective to deny UIM coverage to a family member injured while a passenger in a family-owned vehicle not listed in the policy. Smith, 328 N.C. at 149, 400 S.E.2d at 51. The Court in Smith declined to decide whether a \u201cfamily member\u201d or \u201chousehold-owned\u201d exclusion clearly stated in the UM/UIM section of a policy is contrary to the statute since there was no such exclusion in the UM/UIM section in that case. Smith, 328 N.C. at 150, 400 S.E.2d at 51.\nIn the instant case, the question is whether the \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion in the policy\u2019s UM endorsement is effective to deny coverage for Mrs. Bray\u2019s injuries. In Smith, the Supreme Court indicated that such a provision would contradict the coverage mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a720-279.21(b)(3). Smith, 328 N.C. at 148, 400 S.E.2d at 50. The Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act is a remedial statute to be liberally construed in order that the beneficial purpose intended by its enactment may be accomplished. Sutton, 325 N.C. at 265, 382 S.E.2d at 763; Moore v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 270 N.C. 532, 535, 155 S.E.2d 128, 130-131 (1967). We therefore conclude that the policy\u2019s \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion for UM coverage is repugnant to the purpose of UM and UIM coverage and is therefore invalid. As the Court stated in Smith, \u201cthe definition of \u2018persons insured\u2019 for UM/UIM coverage strongly suggests that the UM/UIM coverage follows the person rather than the vehicle.\u201d Smith, 328 N.C. at 149, 400 S.E.2d at 50. As a person insured of the first class, Mrs. Bray is entitled to UM benefits under the policy regardless of whether she is riding in the insured vehicle or walking down the street. See Bass v. N. C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 109, 418 S.E.2d 221 (1992) (plaintiff, a member of the first class, injured on his motorcycle may recover under the UIM provision in his automobile/truck policy). Mrs. Bray is therefore entitled to UM coverage under her husband\u2019s business auto policy.\nII.\nFarm Bureau next argues that if Mr. Bray\u2019s business auto policy provides UM coverage to Mrs. Bray, such coverage is limited to the statutory minimum of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. Farm Bureau contends that coverage beyond this $25,000/$50,000 requirement is voluntary coverage and governed by the terms of the policy which includes the \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion. We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(g) provides:\nAny policy which grants the coverage required for a motor vehicle liability policy may also grant any lawful coverage in excess of or in addition to the coverage specified for a motor vehicle liability policy and such excess or additional coverage shall not be subject to the provisions of this Article. With respect to a policy which grants such excess or additional coverage the term \u201cmotor vehicle liability policy\u201d shall apply only to that part of the coverage which is required by this section.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(g) (1989).\nThe statute requires that UIM coverage be in an amount equal to the policy limits for bodily injury liability as stated in the policy. Sutton, 325 N.C. at 268, 382 S.E.2d at 765; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(4) (1989). At the time of the accident, however, there was no such requirement for UM coverage. The UM statute was amended in 1991 to provide: \u201cIf the named insured in the policy does not reject uninsured motorist coverage and does not select different coverage limits, the amount of uninsured motorist coverage shall be equal to the highest limit of bodily injury and property damage liability coverage for any one vehicle in the policy.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (1993). This provision was not in effect at the time of the accident in 1990. Therefore, the statutory minimum for UM coverage at the time of the accident was $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) (1989). To the extent that coverage provided by the insurance policy exceeds the statutory minimum coverage, the additional coverage is voluntary and governed by the terms of the insurance contract. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Herndon, 79 N.C. App. 365, 339 S.E.2d 472 (1986); Caison v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 36 N.C. App. 173, 243 S.E.2d 429 (1978). In the instant case, the \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion is valid as to the coverage beyond the statutory minimum of $25,000. Therefore, the UM coverage available to Mrs. Bray under the business auto policy was $25,000.00 and the trial court erred by holding Mrs. Bray was entitled to $300,000 in UM coverage.\nIII.\nFarm Bureau next argues Mrs. Bray is not entitled to UM coverage under Mr. Bray\u2019s garage policy because that policy is an \u201coperator\u2019s policy\u201d to which the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) do not apply. This argument is without merit.\nThe garage policy issued to Mr. Bray contains an endorsement which includes the following section:\nC. Changes in Uninsured Motorist Coverage\nThe Limit of Insurance applies except that we will apply the limit shown in the declarations to first provide the separate limits required by North Carolina Law as follows:\n1. $25,000 for \u201cbodily injury\u201d to any one person caused by any one \u201caccident;\u201d\n2. $50,000 for \u201cbodily injury\u201d to two or more persons caused by any one \u201caccident;\u201d and\n3. $10,000 for \u201cproperty damage\u201d caused by any one \u201caccident.\u201d\nThis provision will not change the total limit of insurance.\nThe declarations of the garage policy do not provide for any UM or UIM coverage. We conclude, however, that the subsequent endorsement provides UM coverage of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. Therefore, Mrs. Bray is entitled to UM coverage of $25,000 under the garage policy.\nFor the forgoing reasons we hold that plaintiffs are entitled to UM coverage of $25,000 under both the business auto policy and the garage policy for a total of $50,000. The trial court\u2019s order which held that plaintiffs are entitled coverage of $300,000 under both policies is therefore\nModified and affirmed.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Henry Temple, Jr. for plaintiffs-appellees.", "Poyner & Spruill, by George L. Simpson, III, and Randall R. Adams, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PHYLLIS TANT BRAY AND HUSBAND, WILBUR GLOVER BRAY, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant\nNo. 932SC517\n(Filed 5 July 1994)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 515 (NCI4th)\u2014 business auto policy \u2014 applicability of UM coverage to owner\u2019s wife\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that, because of a \u201cfamily member/household-owned vehicle\u201d provision which excluded coverage for bodily injury sustained by an insured who was injured while occupying a vehicle owned by the named insured but not insured under the policy, plaintiff wife was not covered under the UM section of defendant\u2019s business auto policy, since the policy\u2019s \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion for UM coverage is repugnant to the purpose of UM and UIM coverage and is therefore invalid, as the definition of \u201cpersons insured\u201d for UM/UIM coverage strongly suggests that the UM/UIM coverage follows the person rather than the vehicle, and plaintiff wife, an insured person of the first class, would be entitled to benefits under the policy whether she was riding in the insured vehicle or walking down the street.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7\u00a7 276, 277, 294.\nWho is \u201cmember\u201d or \u201cresident\u201d of same \u201cfamily\u201d or \u201chousehold,\u201d within no-fault or uninsured motorist provisions of motor vehicle insurance policy. 96 ALR3d 804.\nValidity of exclusion in automobile insurance policy precluding recovery of no-fault benefits for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured vehicle owned by an insured. 18 ALR4th 632.\nValidity, under insurance statutes, of coverage exclusion for injury to or death of insured\u2019s family or household members. 52 ALR4th 18.\n2. Insurance \u00a7 515 (NCI4th)\u2014 business auto policy \u2014 statutory minimum UM coverage provided\nPlaintiff husband\u2019s business auto policy provided UM coverage to plaintiff wife, but such coverage was limited to the statutory minimum of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident, since coverage beyond the statutory minimum was voluntary and governed by the terms of the policy which included a \u201cfamily member\u201d exclusion.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 294.\n3. Insurance \u00a7 536 (NCI4th)\u2014 UM coverage under garage policy-endorsement\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that plaintiff wife was not entitled to UM coverage under plaintiff husband\u2019s garage policy because the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3) did not apply, since an endorsement to the policy provided UM coverage of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7\u00a7 218 et seq.\nLiability insurance of garages, motor vehicle repair shops and sales agencies, and the like. 93 ALR2d 1047.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 26 March 1993 by Judge James R. Strickland in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 February 1994.\nG. Henry Temple, Jr. for plaintiffs-appellees.\nPoyner & Spruill, by George L. Simpson, III, and Randall R. Adams, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0438-01", "first_page_order": 470, "last_page_order": 478 }