{
  "id": 8526789,
  "name": "GODWIN SPRAYERS, INC. v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Godwin Sprayers, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8211DC7",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 497"
    }
  ],
  "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": "428 F. 2d 1385",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2240062
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "held no coverage because \"in charge of\" exclusion refers to physical possession with mechanical control which insured had in the case"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/428/1385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Vt. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        4648855
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "held covered since insured not \"in charge\" of damaged property because he did not have the right to exercise dominion and control over it"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "held covered since insured not \"in charge\" of damaged property because he did not have the right to exercise dominion and control over it"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/126/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 A.L.R. 3d 118",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E. 2d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561955
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "670"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0666-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 S.E. 2d 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "777"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.C. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564714
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "506"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/295/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575528,
        8575516,
        8575502
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0516-03",
        "/nc/281/0516-02",
        "/nc/281/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "901",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572831
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "518"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549174
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "437"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/45/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "140"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561139
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "830"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561041
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "534"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 476,
    "char_count": 6354,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6396991258897615e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8230178670648366
    },
    "sha256": "f1e637f326ae9baa2cb9a534e0345ac6e7cb43e522d17940851d098149e3d61d",
    "simhash": "1:933ec5ae0006a57e",
    "word_count": 1084
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hill and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GODWIN SPRAYERS, INC. v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nSummary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c) is proper when there is \u201cno genuine issue as to any material fact . . . .\u201d It is a \u201cdrastic remedy . . . [that] must be used with due regard to its purposes and a cautious observance of its requirements in order that no person shall be deprived of a trial on a genuine disputed factual issue.\u201d Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 534, 180 S.E. 2d 823, 830 (1971). This remedy \u201cdoes not authorize the court to decide an issue of fact. It authorizes the court to determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists.\u201d Vassey v. Burch, 301 N.C. 68, 72, 269 S.E. 2d 137, 140 (1980). (Emphasis in original.) Summary judgment should be denied \u201c[i]f different material conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.\u201d Spector Credit Union v. Smith, 45 N.C. App. 432, 437, 263 S.E. 2d 319, 322 (1980).\nIn Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 186 S.E. 2d 897, reh. denied, 281 N.C. 516 (1972), the court defined two terms that are determinative on a summary judgment question.\nAn issue is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it is resolved from prevailing in the action. The issue is denominated \u201cgenuine\u201d if it may be maintained by substantial evidence.\n280 N.C. at 518, 186 S.E. 2d at 901 (emphasis added). In addition to no issue of fact being present, to grant summary judgment a court must find \u201cthat on the undisputed aspects of the opposing evidential forecasts the party given judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law.\u201d 2 McIntosh, N.C. Practice and Procedure \u00a7 1660.5 (2d Ed., Phillips Supp. 1970). See also, W. Shuford, N.C. Civil Practice and Procedure \u00a7 56-7 (2d Ed. 1981).\nOur examination of the record and briefs leads us to conclude that summary judgment was improperly granted here. The issue of fact that must be resolved is whether plaintiffs actions, and those of its agent Godwin, put it \u201cin charge of\u201d the USDA plane. We cannot say as a matter of law that the issue is clear. The task of an appellate court in ruling on a summary judgment motion is only to see if the issue of fact exists, not to determine the resolution of the issue.\nBut we do note some principles that the trial court on remand should consider. According to our case law, if terms in an insurance policy are \u201cuncertain or capable of several reasonable interpretations, the doubts will be resolved against the insurance company and in favor of the policyholder.\u201d Woods v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 295 N.C. 500, 506, 246 S.E. 2d 773, 777 (1978). See also, 7 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d Insurance \u00a7 6.2 (1977).\nIn cases like this one, if an insured shows that his loss is apparently covered by the policy, \u201cthe burden is [then] upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable. . . .\u201d Flintall v. Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 666, 670, 131 S.E. 2d 312, 315 (1963). See also, 44 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance \u00a7 1938 (1982).\nResearch has not revealed cases in North Carolina that interpret the policy clause before us. However, other courts have dealt with similar clauses with varying results. See generally, Annot., 86 A.L.R. 3d 118 (1978). 12 Couch on Insurance 2d \u00a7 44A:15 and 21 (Rev. ed. 1981). Compare Fish v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 126 Vt. 487, 236 A. 2d 648 (1967) (held covered since insured not \u201cin charge\u201d of damaged property because he did not have the right to exercise dominion and control over it) with Columbia Helicopters, Inc. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 428 F. 2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1970) (held no coverage because \u201cin charge of\u201d exclusion refers to physical possession with mechanical control which insured had in the case).\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Hill and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lytch & Thompson, by Benjamin N. Thompson, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Keith A. Clinard, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GODWIN SPRAYERS, INC. v. UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.\nNo. 8211DC7\n(Filed 16 November 1982)\nInsurance \u00a7 147\u2014 aircraft insurance \u2014exclusion of coverage for property which insured \u201chas charge of\u2019 \u2014 genuine issue of material fact\nA genuine issue of material fact was presented as to whether plaintiff \u201chad charge of\u2019 a United States Department of Agriculture plane which was damaged hy plaintiffs agent so as to come within a provision of an aircraft liability policy issued to plaintiff excluding coverage for damage to property which the insured \u201chas charge of.\u201d\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Pridgen, Judge. Judgment entered on 12 October 1981 in District Court, Harnett County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 October 1982.\nThis case results from an accident on 17 June 1980 in which plaintiffs agent Raymond Godwin drove plaintiffs plane into a plane owned by the United States Department of Agriculture and parked at plaintiffs airstrip. Godwin was hired in June, 1980 by the USDA to pilot its plane in connection with a sterile boll weevil release program. The USDA plane was kept at plaintiffs airstrip at the request of Dr. Robert G. Jones, supervisor of the release program, because of the poor condition of the USDA airstrip.\nEvidence offered in support of summary judgment motions by both parties showed that Godwin would fly the USDA plane to the USDA airstrip, which was seven miles from plaintiffs airstrip, whenever Jones wanted to perform an experiment. Although Jones did not know how to fly an airplane, he was God-win\u2019s supervisor. After an experiment was completed, Godwin would let Jones out at the USDA airstrip and return to plaintiffs airstrip, where he would land and tie down the plane. Keys to the USDA plane and a USDA credit card for fuel remained at plaintiffs airstrip.\nAfter the 17 June accident, plaintiff paid for the repair of the USDA plane. The defendant later refused to reimburse plaintiff for the damages under its aircraft liability policy based on the policy provision stating \u201cWe do not cover any . . . property damage to property you or anyone we protect owns, has charge of or transports.\u201d Defendant contends that plaintiff \u201chad charge\u201d of the USDA plane and thus, refused to reimburse plaintiff under the policy.\nFrom a denial of its summary judgment motion and a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appealed.\nLytch & Thompson, by Benjamin N. Thompson, for plaintiff appellant.\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Keith A. Clinard, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 532
}