{
  "id": 8358045,
  "name": "BLUE STRIPE, INC. d/b/A ENTRE COMPUTER CENTER v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blue Stripe, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8710SC132",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "169",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 167"
    }
  ],
  "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": "176 S.E. 2d 352",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551475
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0446-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 310,
    "char_count": 4142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1156604605347487e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7637815949887425
    },
    "sha256": "53ad7a8333d0c7af779e07b06584bb42051b00cd1a0f8c957f0eb2fee7c7a498",
    "simhash": "1:28625d4f7ba2dd7e",
    "word_count": 648
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BLUE STRIPE, INC. d/b/A ENTRE COMPUTER CENTER v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nPlaintiff, Blue Stripe, Inc., brought this action seeking to recover damages of $21,610.00 under an \u201call risk\u201d insurance policy issued by defendant, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). The matter was tried before a jury, but, after Blue Stripe presented its case, the trial judge granted USF&G\u2019s motion for a directed verdict. Blue Stripe appealed. We affirm.\nI\nBlue Stripe operated a retail computer sales business in Crabtree Valley Mall under the name Entre Computer Center (Entre). Blue Stripe\u2019s own evidence showed that in March 1983 Wayne Webster, the store\u2019s general manager, took a regular monthly inventory of available stock. He determined that a substantial amount of inventory was missing and notified the police and USF&G. There were no signs of forced entry onto the premises. The USF&G claims adjuster suggested that the loss might be due to employee theft. Entre conducted a detailed inventory of all items placed into and removed from inventory, then filed a claim with USF&G. USF&G denied the claim in November 1983.\nOne Sunday in January 1984, Webster visited the store and noticed an unauthorized individual on the premises accompanying a cleaning service employee. The following Monday an Entre employee took inventory and discovered another loss. The police were notified. Detective Leffingwell investigated the incident and discovered that the particular cleaning service employee had a long history of criminal conduct, but Detective Leffingwell could not gather sufficient evidence to bring charges against that employee. Entre filed a claim with USF&G, and USF&G paid the claim. Blue Stripe then initiated suit to compel payment on its first claim.\nII\nBlue Stripe makes two assignments of error which raise one issue on appeal: Did the trial judge err in granting USF&G\u2019s motion for a directed verdict?\nThe insurance policy under which this claim is made is entitled \u201cSpecial Business Owners Policy,\u201d and it is an \u201call risk\u201d policy. The language establishing coverage reads as follows:\n\u201cThis policy insures against all risk of direct physical loss, subject to all the provisions contained herein.\u201d\nCoverage is limited, however, by the following exclusion:\nExclusions\nThe Company shall not be liable for loss: . . .\n14. Due to unexplained or mysterious disappearance of property, or shortage of property disclosed on taking inventory, .... (emphasis added).\nUSF&G contends that Blue Stripe\u2019s claim is barred by all three of the circumstances described in exclusion 14.\nIn Chadwick v. Insurance Co., 9 N.C. App. 446, 176 S.E. 2d 352 (1970) this Court held that a similar exclusion was \u201csufficiently definite to be construed according to its terms.\u201d Thus, when it has been conclusively demonstrated that the exclusion applies, the claimant cannot recover. In the instant case, Blue Stripe\u2019s own evidence revealed that their losses were \u201cdisclosed on taking inventory.\u201d We are compelled by Chadwick to honor the exclusion without qualification or exception. Blue Stripe points to extensive authority from other jurisdictions limiting the impact of exclusions in \u201call risk\u201d policies; however, in view of Chadwick, it is beyond this Court\u2019s power to adopt such reasoning, notwithstanding its persuasiveness. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Johnson and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boxley, Bolton & Garber, by Ronald H. Garber, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Walter L. Horton, Jr. for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BLUE STRIPE, INC. d/b/A ENTRE COMPUTER CENTER v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY\nNo. 8710SC132\n(Filed 15 September 1987)\nInsurance 8 142.1\u2014 losses discovered during inventory \u2014 no coverage\nPlaintiff could not recover on an \u201call risk\u201d insurance policy where the policy provided that defendant would not be liable for loss due to \u201cshortage of property disclosed on taking inventory,\u201d and plaintiffs own evidence revealed that its losses were discovered when the general manager took a regular monthly inventory of available stock.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Smith, Judge. Judgment entered 18 September 1986 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 September 1987.\nBoxley, Bolton & Garber, by Ronald H. Garber, for plaintiff appellant.\nWalter L. Horton, Jr. for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 195,
  "last_page_order": 197
}