{
  "id": 8380136,
  "name": "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ELIZABETH CHANEY STILWELL, Administratrix of the Estate of DENNIS RAY STILWELL, JR., deceased; GMAC INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; DENNYSE RAYANNE NICOLE STILWELL, a Minor, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allstate Insurance v. Stilwell",
  "decision_date": "2006-08-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-1393",
  "first_page": "738",
  "last_page": "740",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 N.C. App. 738"
    }
  ],
  "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": "522 S.E.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593"
        },
        {
          "page": "742"
        },
        {
          "page": "594"
        },
        {
          "page": "596"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N.C. App. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11242884
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "741"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/135/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "374"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 765",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553533
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "769"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0765-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 401,
    "char_count": 7064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.711,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47309727323871004
    },
    "sha256": "ffa782a108d5d9d30be140713339b9dbc38816577c3dead586300b204f269c8d",
    "simhash": "1:c3337564456e998e",
    "word_count": 1081
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:18:34.747306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MCCULLOUGH and TYSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ELIZABETH CHANEY STILWELL, Administratrix of the Estate of DENNIS RAY STILWELL, JR., deceased; GMAC INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; DENNYSE RAYANNE NICOLE STILWELL, a Minor, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nOn 8 October 2004, plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company (\u201cAllstate\u201d) asked the court to declare its obligations regarding insurance policies issued to a driver whose negligence caused the death of Dennis Ray Stilwell, Jr. (\u201cdecedent\u201d), the spouse of defendant Elizab\u00e9th Chaney Stilwell (\u201cdefendant\u201d). Each party moved for summary judgment, and on 21 June 2005, the trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate. Defendant appeals. As discussed below, we affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s spouse died on 22 September 2003 as the result of the negligent operation of a car driven by Joshua Chad Moses. Moses was covered by two liability policies issued by GMAC Insurance, each with liability limits of $30,000 per person. Defendant reached a settlement with GMAC for $60,000, exhausting both liability policies, but reserving her right to recover additional damages under any applicable underinsured motorist (\u201cUIM\u201d) coverage. At the time of his death, decedent was the son of Dennis and Frankie Stilwell (\u201cthe Stilwells\u201d), a resident of their household, and thus, an insured family member under any UIM coverage provided to the Stilwells. The Stilwells had automobile insurance coverage provided by plaintiff. Defendant made a claim for additional damages from plaintiff, contending that Allstate had issued two policies to the Stilwells, each of which included UIM coverage. Allstate countered that only one policy had been issued to the Stilwells with UIM coverage limited to $50,000, less than the amount defendant recovered from the exhausted liability policies. The present declaratory judgment action ensued.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred granting summary judgment to Allstate based on the ruling that the Stilwells had only a single insurance policy with Allstate. We do not agree.\nAt the time of decedent\u2019s death, he was covered by Allstate policy 130072640, issued to the Stilwells, which covered two of their vehicles. Policy 130072640 provided UIM coverage in the amount of $50,000. Because of Allstate\u2019s computer system limitations and the fact that the Stilwell family owned and insured more than four vehicles, Allstate issued a second policy reference number (13017390), referred to as a multiple record policy (\u201cMRP\u201d) number, which covered three additional vehicles. The sworn affidavit of Allstate employee Carol Edens states that policy 130072640 and MRP 13017390 comprised only one automobile insurance policy. Uncontroverted evidence indicates that all policy premiums paid for the Stilwells\u2019 five vehicles were billed under policy 130072640 in a single bill. The invoice for policy 130170370 states that UIM coverage for bodily injury is \u201ccharged on policy 130072640,\u201d and shows no balance due; the invoice for policy 130072640 shows a charge of $25 for such coverage. In addition, Edens\u2019 affidavit indicated that the premiums paid only entitled the Stilwells to UIM coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person. Further, Allstate submitted numerous letters sent to the Stilwells, six before decedent\u2019s death and one after, explaining that they had only a single policy with Allstate. These letters explained:\nBecause you have more than four vehicles to protect, you have two sets of policy Declarations with two policy numbers. In effect, you have one policy with two policy numbers.\nDefendant objected to the admission of this evidence, contending that it constituted merely the affiant\u2019s legal conclusions. Our review of the affidavit reveals that it contains nothing more than uncon-troverted factual assertions about Allstate\u2019s billing practices and internal procedures, which the trial court properly considered. In addition, defendant cites Ridenhour v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 46 N.C. App. 765, 769, 266 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1980), for the proposition that an insurance agent\u2019s interpretation of the terms of an insurance policy is not admissible to contradict the written policy. Here, we conclude that nothing in the affidavits contradicts the terms of the written policy, as the declaration contains no language indicating that the Stilwells had two policies with Allstate.\nIn Iodice v. Jones, plaintiffs sought \u201cdeclaratory judgment on the issue of whether they had purchased one or two underinsured motorist (UIM) policies from GEICO [their automobile insurance company].\u201d 135 N.C. App. 740, 741, 522 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1999). In Iodice, GEICO had informed the plaintiffs that only three vehicles could be covered under a single policy and that, in order to cover their fourth vehicle GEICO \u201cwould need to issue a second policy.\u201d Id. at 742, 522 S.E.2d at 594. In addition, GEICO sent plaintiffs separate billings with different renewal dates for each policy. Id. Most importantly, \u201cGEICO submitted affidavits, in response to Plaintiffs\u2019 request for the production of documents, plainly stating that separate policies of insurance were \u2018issued.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 745, 522 S.E.2d at 596. Although GEICO submitted an affidavit from an underwriting manager stating the second policy was only a extension and not a separate policy, this Court concluded that this contradictory evidence revealed \u201cnothing more than an ambiguity with respect to the question of whether there is one policy or two policies[.]\u201d Id.\nHere, in contrast, the undisputed facts reveal that Allstate has consistently and without contradiction maintained that it issued the Stilwells only a single policy. Unlike the insurance company in Iodice, Allstate here has never stated that it issued two separate policies to the Stilwells; to the contrary it has repeatedly explained, both before and after decedent\u2019s death, that the Stilwells had but a single policy and that the use of two policy numbers was merely a concession to computer limitations. On these facts, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MCCULLOUGH and TYSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUDSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morris, York, Williams, Surles & Barringer, L.L.P., by John P. Barringer and Keith B. Nichols, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Byrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant & McMahon, PA., by Robert K. Denton and Lawrence D. McMahon, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ELIZABETH CHANEY STILWELL, Administratrix of the Estate of DENNIS RAY STILWELL, JR., deceased; GMAC INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; DENNYSE RAYANNE NICOLE STILWELL, a Minor, Defendant\nNo. COA05-1393\n(Filed 1 August 2006)\nInsurance\u2014 UIM \u2014 number of policies \u2014 multiple numbers for one policy\nThe trial court in a declaratory judgment action properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff Allstate in a UIM action in which the question was the number of insurance policies issued by Allstate insuring five vehicles. Allstate consistently and without contradiction maintained both before and after the accident in question that it had issued but a single policy, with the use of two policy numbers being a concession to computer limitations.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 28 June 2005 by Judge Robert C. Ervin in the Superior Court in Caldwell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 May 2006.\nMorris, York, Williams, Surles & Barringer, L.L.P., by John P. Barringer and Keith B. Nichols, for plaintiff-appellee.\nByrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant & McMahon, PA., by Robert K. Denton and Lawrence D. McMahon, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0738-01",
  "first_page_order": 770,
  "last_page_order": 772
}
