{ "id": 8522663, "name": "MID-WEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Mid-West Mutual Insurance v. Government Employees Insurance", "decision_date": "1983-11-15", "docket_number": "No. 8210SC1002", "first_page": "143", "last_page": "147", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "65 N.C. App. 143" } ], "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": "412 N.Y.S. 2d 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 N.E. 2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.Y. 2d 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.2d", "case_ids": [ 2338380 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny-2d/45/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ariz. App. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz. App.", "case_ids": [ 1244113 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/24/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 Ark. 961", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1600620 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/247/0961-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 S.C. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2121871 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/258/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 N.E. 2d 879", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 786", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2678401, 2675386 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/7/0786-01", "/ill-app-3d/7/0786-02" ] }, { "cite": "329 F. Supp. 853", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 5594733 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "859" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/329/0853-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622037 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E. 2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567046, 8567176, 8567080, 8567117, 8566975 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0412-02", "/nc/286/0412-05", "/nc/286/0412-03", "/nc/286/0412-04", "/nc/286/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443", "parenthetical": "term automobile liability insurance includes motorcycle liability insurance" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.C. App. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549807 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "226", "parenthetical": "term automobile liability insurance includes motorcycle liability insurance" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/24/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569192, 8569295, 8569330, 8569243, 8569374 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0203-01", "/nc/298/0203-03", "/nc/298/0203-04", "/nc/298/0203-02", "/nc/298/0203-05" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550066 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627133 ], "year": 1929, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0072-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 447, "char_count": 7771, "ocr_confidence": 0.836, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2012999879529284e-07, "percentile": 0.5937693664765784 }, "sha256": "084acf71df80a7668acfad2172cafefc16abd9df384e2e137c1daea314e9414f", "simhash": "1:b9324770565fbccb", "word_count": 1224 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:09.312138+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "MID-WEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nI.\nPhillip Peters was injured when the motorcycle he was operating was struck by an uninsured pickup truck. At the time of the accident Peters had uninsured motorist coverage under a policy on his motorcycle for which he had paid premiums to plaintiff. Plaintiff settled the claim with Peters for $15,000, which was within its policy limits.\nPlaintiff then sought contribution from defendant on the basis of defendant\u2019s policy issued to Peters\u2019 father. Because Peters was living at home with his father at the time of the accident, he was classified as an insured under that policy. He was not, however, the named insured under that policy, nor had he made payments to defendant for this coverage.\nPlaintiff argues that, by virtue of the \u201cother insurance\u201d language contained in defendant\u2019s uninsured motorist coverage, defendant\u2019s coverage was concurrent with its own. Defendant counters that the policy provides only excess coverage; and that since the settlement with Peters was within the policy limits, it is not liable to plaintiff. The applicable language of defendant\u2019s policy provides:\nWith respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile not owned by the named insured under this endorsement, the insurance hereunder shall apply only as excess insurance over any other similar insurance available to such occupant, and this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which the applicable limit of liability of this endorsement exceeds the sum of the applicable limits of liability of all such other insurance.\nThe trial court agreed with defendant and granted its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals.\nII.\nThe issue is whether the \u201cother insurance\u201d clause providing for excess coverage applies when the insured is occupying a motorcycle. If so, under the plain wording of the policy the court correctly allowed summary judgment. If not, pro rata contribution would be appropriate.\nThe definition section of defendant\u2019s policy provides little guidance. The policy contains definitions of both insured and uninsured automobiles, but does not define automobile. The terms \u201cautomobile\u201d and \u201cvehicle\u201d appear, however, to be used interchangeably. Our Supreme Court has stated that \u201c[a] motorcycle is a vehicle.\u201d Anderson v. Insurance Co., 197 N.C. 72, 75, 147 S.E. 693, 694 (1929). The policy also contains a list of items not included within the terms \u201cinsured automobile\u201d and \u201cuninsured automobile,\u201d and motorcycles are not listed.\nThe parties have not cited, and our research has not disclosed, a North Carolina case interpreting the term \u201cautomobile\u201d when used in the \u201cother insurance\u201d clause of uninsured motorist coverage. Cases interpreting the term in other parts of a policy, however, have held that it does not include a motorcycle. E.g., Hunter v. Liability Co., 41 N.C. App. 496, 501-02, 255 S.E. 2d 206, 209-10, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 203 (1979). In some instances, though, the term has been construed to encompass motorcycles. See Comr. of Insurance v. Automobile Rate Office, 24 N.C. App. 223, 226, 210 S.E. 2d 441, 443 (1974) (term automobile liability insurance includes motorcycle liability insurance), cert. denied, 286 N.C. 412, 211 S.E. 2d 801 (1975).\nIt is significant that the previous cases addressed whether a motorcycle should be included within coverage. Our Supreme Court has stated that the apparent reason for excluding motorcycles was \u201cthe greater risk involved in insuring against the perils inherent in the use of motorcycles.\u201d LeCroy v. Insurance Co., 251 N.C. 19, 23, 110 S.E. 2d 463, 466 (1959); see also Anderson v. Insurance Co., supra. Thus, because of the greater risk motorcycles present, the courts have been unwilling to hold that by using the term \u201cautomobile\u201d insurance companies intended to insure motorcycles.\nHere, however, we deal with an exclusion from coverage. The \u201cother insurance\u201d clause was intended to limit the liability of defendant, the non-primary insurer, to situations where there was either no insurance or inadequate insurance. There is no reason to presume that, in excluding automobiles with other insurance, defendant intended to insure the greater risk presented by relatives of the insured who have other insurance on motorcycles. To disallow coverage to a motorcycle when an automobile is covered, but allow coverage to a motorcycle when an automobile is excluded, would be a bizarre interpretation. The principles which have led our courts to hold that the term \u201cautomobile\u201d does not encompass motorcycles when dealing with inclusion of coverage would thus seem to dictate a holding that the term does encompass motorcycles when dealing with exclusion from coverage in the context of an \u201cother insurance\u201d clause of uninsured motorist coverage. We thus hold that defendant\u2019s policy provided for excess coverage only, and plaintiff is not entitled to contribution.\nIII.\nWe note that some jurisdictions have held that the term automobile does not include motorcycles. E.g., Phillips v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Co., 329 F. Supp. 853 (W.D. Ark. 1971); Home Indemnity Co. v. Hunter, 7 Ill. App. 3d 786, 288 N.E. 2d 879 (1972); Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman\u2019s Fund Insurance Co., 258 S.C. 533, 189 S.E. 2d 823 (1972). Although the Phillips court held that the term automobile did not include a motorcycle, it still held, on the basis of the parties\u2019 intent, that the father\u2019s policy provided excess coverage only. It stated:\nThe record . . . does not establish that the plaintiff had any intention of insuring his son against uninsured motorists while riding the motorcycle when he purchased the policy from Northwestern, nor did Northwestern contemplate coverage of this type. ... It is the duty of the court to carry out the intentions of the parties. \u2018Courts may enforce legal contracts or void illegal ones, but courts may not expand contracts beyond their terms and the intent of the parties.\u2019 Harris v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., (1970) 247 Ark. 961, at page 965, 448 S.W. 2d 652, at page 654.\n329 F. Supp. at 859.\nWe note further that at least two courts have held that the term automobile does include motorcycles under uninsured motorist coverage. Rodriquez v. Maryland Indemnity Insurance Co., 24 Ariz. App. 392, 539 P. 2d 196 (1975); Country-Wide Insurance Co. v. Wagoner, 45 N.Y. 2d 581, 384 N.E. 2d 653, 412 N.Y.S. 2d 106 (1978).\nAffirmed.\nJudges Johnson and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by Robert C. Paschal, for plaintiff appellant.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dor sett, Mitchell & Jemigan, by Nigle B. Barrow, Jr., and Timothy P. Lehan, for defendant ap-pellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MID-WEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 8210SC1002\n(Filed 15 November 1983)\nInsurance \u00a7 69\u2014 other insurance clause in uninsured motorist coverage \u2014 motorcycle as \u201cautomobile\u201d\nA motorcycle is an \u201cautomobile\u201d within the meaning of language in an uninsured motorist endorsement providing that the uninsured motorist coverage is only \u201cexcess insurance\u201d with respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an \u201cautomobile\u201d not owned by the named insured. Therefore, a liability policy issued to a motorcyclist\u2019s father provided only excess coverage beyond the limits of the motorcyclist\u2019s own policy for injuries suffered by the motorcyclist when his motorcycle was struck by an uninsured vehicle.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Lee, Judge. Order entered 3 June 1982 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 August 1983.\nPlaintiff appeals from allowance of defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment in an action in which plaintiff seeks contribution from defendant under the \u201cother insurance\u201d clause of uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to defendant\u2019s policy.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by Robert C. Paschal, for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dor sett, Mitchell & Jemigan, by Nigle B. Barrow, Jr., and Timothy P. Lehan, for defendant ap-pellee." }, "file_name": "0143-01", "first_page_order": 175, "last_page_order": 179 }