{
  "id": 8554040,
  "name": "ELEANOR HICKS v. DURHAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hicks v. Durham Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7426DC726",
  "first_page": "725",
  "last_page": "728",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 725"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 S.E. 2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561396
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S.E. 2d 521",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619916
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "88"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 A.L.R. 685",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1928,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.W. 2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10233536,
        10233465,
        2319464
      ],
      "year": 1939,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/132/0393-02",
        "/sw2d/132/0393-01",
        "/tex/134/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Tex. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tex.",
      "case_ids": [
        2319464
      ],
      "year": 1939,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tex/134/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S.W. 2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 Tenn. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8532083
      ],
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/163/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Miss. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        8818985
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/148/0173-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 4908,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3567076690571535
    },
    "sha256": "ccb2e9e4514ce76c58094a782d2a9519e27697def6840d5620d64b67964eeac8",
    "simhash": "1:50cf1108f926a58b",
    "word_count": 826
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELEANOR HICKS v. DURHAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BALEY, Judge.\nThe only issue before this Court is whether the policy provision excluding death from \u201chomicide or intentional \u25a0 act' of another person\u201d applies to the uncontroverted facts of this case. Defendant contends that because Phillips pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, a degree of homicide under G.S. 14-18, the excl\u00fasion is applicable and plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the death of her husband. We do not agree with this narrow interpretation of the exclusionary provision of this policy. One may die as the result of an accident caused by the negligent act of another for which there may be criminal liability, and yet not be the victim of a \u201chomicide\u201d within the general meaning of that term as used in an insurance policy.\nOther courts have generally construed \u201chomicide\u201d to mean an intentional killing. Great So. Life Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 148 Miss. 173, 114 So. 262 (1937) ; Day v. Interstate Life & Acc. Co., 163 Tenn. 190, 42 S.W. 2d 208 (1931) ; Seaboard Life Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 134 Tex. 165, 132 S.W. 2d 393 (1939). See also Annot., 56 A.L.R. 685 (1928). In Goldberg v. Insurance Co., 248 N.C. 86, 88, 102 S.E. 2d 521, 523, our North Carolina Supreme Court said:\n\u201c[D]eath having resulted from the voluntary, unlawful act of Dr. Black, i.e., an assault and battery, it was death by \u2018homicide\u2019 within the meaning of the exception clauses of the policies, (citations omitted.)\u201d\nTo a layman, the word \u201chomicide\u201d imports a voluntary or intenti\u00f3nal act. The language of the policy \u2014 \u201chomicide or intentional act\u201d \u2014 is ambiguous and implies that the homicide must involve a conscious intent. Any uncertainty as to the meaning of the words \u00fased in the exclusionary provision of the policy must be construed in favor of the policyholder and against the company. Trust Co. v. Insurance Co., 276 N.C. 348, 172 S.E. 2d 518. If the insurer desires to avoid coverage under its policy in cases where a negligent act may involve criminal responsibility, it should be expressly stated.\nThe undisputed evidence is that there was no intentional act on Phillips\u2019 part and the insured died as the result of a tragic accident. On cross-examination by defendant\u2019s attorney, Phillips said in his deposition:\n\u201cI did not know that the gun was going to discharge when I held it in my hand, and I did not intend for it to discharge. I did not intend for it to shoot Mr. Hicks or to do him any harm, and I don\u2019t know what caused the gun to discharge. I did not do anything deliberately, did not intend for the gun to fire. I do not know whether or not I did anything to cause it to fire. It was an accident. I\u2019m saying I did not intend for the gun to fire, and I don\u2019t know of anything that I did to cause it to fire.\u201d\nThere being no issue of fact, summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BALEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James B. Ledford and Richard A. Cohan, by Richard A. Cohan, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Hedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms, Worley and Kellam, by Richard T. Feerick, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELEANOR HICKS v. DURHAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 7426DC726\n(Filed 20 November 1974)\nInsurance \u00a7 14 \u2014 life insurance \u2014 death resulting from homicide or intentional act \u2014 exclusion of coverage\nProvision of a life insurance policy excluding coverage when death occurred from \u201chomicide or intentional act of another person\u201d did not apply to this case where insured died as the result of an accidental gunshot wound inflicted by one who later pleaded guilty to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnson, Judge, 18 February 1974 Session of District Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nHeard in Court of Appeals 19 September 1974.\nThis is an action brought by plaintiff, the named beneficiary, to recover proceeds under an insurance policy issued by defendant on the life of plaintiff\u2019s husband. The policy contained the following exclusionary provision: \u201cThe insurance under this policy shall not be payable if the insured\u2019s death . . . results from any one of the following . . . (e) homicide or the intentional act of another person.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s husband died as the result of an accidental gunshot wound inflicted by Robert Earl Phillips, who later pleaded guilty to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.\nAfter answer was filed, defendant moved for summary judgment. In support of the motion it offered the deposition of Robert Earl Phillips stating that on the evening of 30 June 1972 he was walking up to Puckett\u2019s Farm Equipment in Mecklen-burg County, and someone mentioned his having a gun. He pulled the gun from his jacket, and it unexpectedly went off in his hand. The bullet struck Norman G. Hicks, the insured, and killed him.\nPlaintiff likewise moved for summary judgment on the basis of Phillips\u2019 deposition.\nAfter a hearing on both motions the trial court, granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.\nJames B. Ledford and Richard A. Cohan, by Richard A. Cohan, for plaintiff appellee.\nHedrick, McKnight, Parham, Helms, Worley and Kellam, by Richard T. Feerick, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0725-01",
  "first_page_order": 753,
  "last_page_order": 756
}
