{
  "id": 11890734,
  "name": "LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO., Defendant; LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hand v. Connecticut Indemnity Co.",
  "decision_date": "1996-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-1437",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "776",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 774"
    }
  ],
  "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": "49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.15",
      "category": "laws:admin_compilation",
      "reporter": "C.F.R.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 S.E.2d 682",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4684257,
        4686607,
        4682963,
        4684918,
        4681629
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0306-01",
        "/nc/311/0306-02",
        "/nc/311/0306-05",
        "/nc/311/0306-03",
        "/nc/311/0306-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 S.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "858"
        },
        {
          "page": "859"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.C. App. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526991
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "633"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/67/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Stat. 803",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.32",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "weight": 7,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "634"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 5631,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1937869685226118e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7741221592455776
    },
    "sha256": "d49330e80aea9a4e07b8079e8e358ad2b2b7e5c1c014b0119b8571009dc56e25",
    "simhash": "1:9102f2488f0230d3",
    "word_count": 895
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WALKER and MARTIN, Mark D. concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO., Defendant LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nUpon motion of plaintiff and by order filed 8 February 1996, this Court has consolidated these appeals, both of which arise out of the same accident and present a single, identical issue for review.\nIn 1993, Larry E. Hand worked as a truck driver for S.C.A.T.S. Carriers, Inc. (\u201cSCATS\u201d), an interstate motor carrier. On 17 March 1993, Hand was seriously injured in a highway accident which occurred while he and the driver of the truck, also a SCATS employee, were making deliveries for SCATS. SCATS did not have workers\u2019 compensation insurance coverage. However, it did have two motor vehicle liability insurance policies, one issued by Connecticut Indemnity Co. (\u201cConnecticut\u201d) and one issued by Canal Insurance Company (\u201cCanal\u201d).\nHand filed these declaratory judgment actions against Canal and Connecticut seeking a finding that he was covered under the policies. The trial court granted summary judgment for Canal and Connecticut. Plaintiff appeals.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether, as a matter of law, federal law renders the employee exclusion clauses in the Canal and Connecticut policies invalid and unenforceable against plaintiff.\nAll parties agree that, at the time of the accident, the insurance coverage issued by Canal and Connecticut to SCATS was required by 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 (1993) and that the SCATS vehicle was exempt from the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. section 20-279.1 et. seq., because it was operated under an Interstate Commerce Commission (\u201cICC\u201d) permit or certificate. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.32 (1993).\n49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 required, as a condition for an ICC permit or certificate, that an interstate carrier such as SCATs provide \u201ca bond, insurance policy, or other type of security . . . sufficient to pay ... for each final judgment against the carrier for bodily injury to, or death of, an individual resulting from the negligent operation, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles under the certificate or permit . . . .\u201d 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 (1993) (repealed by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, \u00a7 102(a), 109 Stat. 803, 804 (1995)).\nCiting South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Smith, 67 N.C. App. 632, 313 S.E.2d 856, disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 306, 317 S.E.2d 682 (1984), plaintiff asserts that 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 required coverage of an injured employee as an \u201cindividual.\u201d We disagree. Smith dealt with the application of the North Carolina Financial Responsibility Act which plaintiff admits does not apply to the SCATS vehicle. See Smith, 67 N.C. App. at 633, 313 S.E.2d at 858. In addition, 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 did not contain a provision similar to N.C. Gen. Stat. section 20-279.21(e), the controlling provision in Smith. See id. at 634, 313 S.E.2d at 859. We also note that the employee exclusions contained in the Canal and Connecticut policies conformed to the 49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.15 approved endorsement form which includes an employee exclusion clause. See 49 C.F.R. \u00a7 387.15 (October 1994).\nThe facts of this case reveal an unfortunate gap. In this context, the federal laws require liability insurance but not workers\u2019 compensation insurance. North Carolina law requires workers\u2019 compensation insurance but has no provision covering workers who are injured on the job when bankrupt employers have not secured insurance.\nIt is a matter the legislature could correct, or better still, the industry could rectify. There could be a mechanism whereby the industry could provide for employees who are injured on the job with uninsured and bankrupt companies. The legal profession assesses its members (even judges) to provide for innocent clients who fall victim to the malefactions of unworthy attorneys. Some provision should be made to cover such blameless victims as the plaintiff.\nSince we conclude that 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927 did not invalidate or limit the employee exclusion clauses in the policies issued by defendants, the trial court\u2019s orders granting summary judgment for defendants are affirmed.\nJudges WALKER and MARTIN, Mark D. concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gordon & Nesbit, P.L.L.C., by L. G. Gordon, Jr. and Thomas L. Nesbit; and David Botchin, for plaintiff.",
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.G., by Dewey W. Wells and Mary S. Pollard, for defendant Connecticut Indemnity Co.; Henson & Henson, L.L.P., by Perry G. Henson, for defendant Canal Insurance Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO., Defendant LARRY E. HAND, Plaintiff v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant\nNo. COA95-1437\n(Filed 17 December 1996)\nInsurance \u00a7 582 (NCI4th)\u2014 interstate motor carrier \u2014 truck accident \u2014 injury to employee \u2014 employee exclusion clauses in carrier\u2019s liability policies\nFederal law, which required as a condition for an I.C.C. permit or certificate that the interstate carrier provide insurance or other security sufficient to pay for a judgment against the carrier for injuries to an individual resulting from the negligent operation of motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 10927, did not require coverage of an injured employee as an \u201cindividual\u201d and did not render the employee exclusion clauses in the carrier\u2019s motor vehicle insurance policies invalid as to an employee injured in a truck accident even though the carrier was exempt from the N.C. Financial Responsibility Act and federal law did not require the carrier to have workers\u2019 compensation insurance.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7\u00a7 279 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order signed 4 October 1995 and from judgment entered 6 October 1995 by Judge W. Steven Allen in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 October 1996.\nGordon & Nesbit, P.L.L.C., by L. G. Gordon, Jr. and Thomas L. Nesbit; and David Botchin, for plaintiff.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.G., by Dewey W. Wells and Mary S. Pollard, for defendant Connecticut Indemnity Co.; Henson & Henson, L.L.P., by Perry G. Henson, for defendant Canal Insurance Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 812,
  "last_page_order": 814
}