{ "id": 8551659, "name": "DANNY SPIVEY v. OAKLEY'S GENERAL CONTRACTORS, AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Spivey v. Oakley's General Contractors", "decision_date": "1977-03-02", "docket_number": "No. 769IC656", "first_page": "488", "last_page": "491", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "32 N.C. App. 488" } ], "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": "134 S.E. 2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572741 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 667", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574883 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0667-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563170, 8563270, 8563121, 8563090, 8563221, 8563190 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0117-03", "/nc/277/0117-06", "/nc/277/0117-02", "/nc/277/0117-01", "/nc/277/0117-05", "/nc/277/0117-04" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 N.C. App. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550639 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/8/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E. 2d 448", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p. 445" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626252 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0435-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 395, "char_count": 6975, "ocr_confidence": 0.69, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0464893543017164e-07, "percentile": 0.7548532752295597 }, "sha256": "ac24c1881647cc9941918f85a4b49e397ab8704e817a3e3e2963458b5b366bb9", "simhash": "1:397d00c639009935", "word_count": 1120 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:52.366891+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "DANNY SPIVEY v. OAKLEY\u2019S GENERAL CONTRACTORS, AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe sole question is whether, after the employer has settled with the employee, the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether a policy of compensation insurance has been properly cancelled.\nAll questions arising under Article 1 of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act shall, except as otherwise provided by the act, be determined by the Commission. G.S. 97-91. A section of that article, G.S. 97-99, regulates the cancellation of policies issued under the article.\nThere can be little doubt that, prior to the time the employer settled with the employee, the Commission had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the cancellation.\n\u201cThe general rule appears to be that, when it is ancillary to the determination of the employee\u2019s right, the compensation commission has authority to pass upon a question relating to the insurance policy, including fraud in procurement, mistake of the parties, reformation of the policy, cancellation, existence or validity of an insurance contract, coverage of the policy at the time of injury, and construction of extent of coverage. This, of course, in harmony with the conception of compensation insurance as being something more than an independent contractual matter between insurer and insured.\nOn the other hand, when the rights of the employee in a pending claim are not at stake, many commissions disavow jurisdiction and send the parties to the courts for relief. This may occur when the question is purely one between, two insurers, one of whom alleges that he has been made to pay an undue share of an award to a claimant, the award itself not being under attack. Or it may occur when the insured and insurer have some dispute entirely between themselves about the validity or coverage of the policy or the sharing of the admitted liability. Similarly, when an action for reformation of an insurance policy was brought, but it was not alleged that any claim was pending on that policy before the compensation board, the court exercised its normal power to reform instruments, but indicated that it would not have done so if the pendency of such a claim had been pleaded.\u201d Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, Volume 4, ,\u00a7 92.40.\nThe Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction under the statute \u201cordinarily includes the right and duty to hear and determine questions of fact and law respecting the existence of insurance coverage and liability of the insurance carrier.\u201d Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E. 2d 448, at p. 445. In Greene, the rights of the deceased employee\u2019s survivors were not contested. The dispute was between the employer and the carrier.\nJurisdiction of the Commission is not limited solely to questions arising out of an employer-employee relationship or- to the determination of rights asserted by or on behalf of an injured employee. Wake County Hospital v. Industrial Comm., 8 N.C. App. 259, 174 S.E. 2d 292, cert. den., 277 N.C. 117. In Moore v. Electric Co., 264 N.C. 667, 142 S.E. 2d 659, neither the emnlover nor the two alleged carriers challenged the claimant\u2019s right to compensation. The dispute was between the employer and the alleged carriers. Each defendant concluded that one or both of the remaining defendants were liable. The Court affirmed the liability of one carrier on the basis of a temporary binder issued by that company. Jt remanded the case to the Commission for determination by the Commission of whether the other company had properly cancelled its \u25a0 insurance contract.\nThe employer relies on Clark v. Ice Cream Co., 261 N.C. 234, 134 S.E. 2d 354. In that case the policy stated an effective date of 9 May 1960. The employee\u2019s injury occurred on 3 May 1960. The employer contended that the carrier had agreed to issue a policy effective 20 April 1960. The Court held that the carrier could not be liable on the policy until \u201cthe policy is reformed on the ground of mutual mistake (or otherwise) so as to provide for a policy period inclusive of May 3, 1960.\u201d Clark v. Ice Cream Co., supra, p. 238. The Court discussed the strictness of pleadings then required for the \u201cequitable\u201d remedy of reformation. It concluded that the Commission did have jurisdiction to exercise the \u201cequitable power\u201d to reform a compensation insurance policy.\nIn the case at bar, no party seeks to reform or change the express term of a contract. The question is whether the insurance policy, as written, was on the risk at the time of the injury. That question should have been resolved by the Commission in the proceeding then pending before that body.\nThe order dismissing the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and the cause is remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ramsey, Hubbard & Galloway, by Mark Galloway, for defendant appellee, Oakley\u2019s General Contractors.", "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Charles H. Young, Jr., and B. T. Henderson II, for defendant appellant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DANNY SPIVEY v. OAKLEY\u2019S GENERAL CONTRACTORS, AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 769IC656\n(Filed 2 March 1977)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 83\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 settlement by employer\u2014 validity of cancellation of compensation policy \u2014 jurisdiction of Industrial Commission\nEven though the employer had settled with the employee, the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether the employer\u2019s workmen\u2019s compensation policy had been effectively cancelled before the date of the employee\u2019s injury or whether the employee\u2019s injury was still covered by the policy.\nAppeal by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company from the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Order filed 14 May 1976. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 January 1977.\nThe facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute.\nOn 7 February 1974, the employee was injured in a work related accident. The carrier, Nationwide, accepted liability and paid temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $54.96. Thereafter, the carrier disclaimed liability on the risk on the grounds that its policy with the employer had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium before the accident. The employer and employee then settled the claim as between themselves and the appropriate report was filed with the Commission. Nationwide did not participate in that settlement and its liability has not been determined.\nA hearing was scheduled before a deputy commissioner who concluded that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the cancellation of the policy. An order was entered dismissing the proceeding. The parties stipulated, however, that subsequently all of the evidence necessary for a final determination on the merits was received by the Commission. That evidence was not brought forward and is of no concern on this appeal.\nThe order dismissing the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed by the Commission and the carrier appealed.\nRamsey, Hubbard & Galloway, by Mark Galloway, for defendant appellee, Oakley\u2019s General Contractors.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Charles H. Young, Jr., and B. T. Henderson II, for defendant appellant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company." }, "file_name": "0488-01", "first_page_order": 516, "last_page_order": 519 }