{
  "id": 8551475,
  "name": "KELLY A. CHADWICK, t/a CHADWICK THRUWAY JEWELERS v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chadwick v. Aetna Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1970-09-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7021DC481",
  "first_page": "446",
  "last_page": "448",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 446"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 S.E. 2d 817",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576581
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560429
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0129-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 4651,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6856254361847664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.891669166812428
    },
    "sha256": "171d578d2bc5ccc89d4cf4abd0f736612926159fa972a43bedcd29acbb5c93c7",
    "simhash": "1:044acd3c09de615f",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Morris and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KELLY A. CHADWICK, t/a CHADWICK THRUWAY JEWELERS v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brock, J.\nThe crux of defendant\u2019s appeal lies in its eighth assignment of error which asserts error in the trial court\u2019s construction of the exclusionary provision of the policy quoted above. The trial judge instructed the jury, in effect, that it was not to be concerned whether the loss was an \u201cunexplained loss\u201d or a \u201cmysterious disappearance\u201d unless it was disclosed on taking inventory. He clearly instructed the jury that the provision of the policy quoted above contained only one exclusion, i.e., \u201closs or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.\u201d We disagree with this interpretation.\nIt is well settled that policies of insurance, having been prepared by the insurer, are to be liberally construed in favor of the insured, and strictly against the insurer. An exception from liability is not favored. Henderson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17 (1966). However, these rules come into play only where the language is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible of two or more interpretations. Walsh v. United Insurance Co. of America, 265 N.C. 634, 144 S.E. 2d 817 (1965).\nThe parties cite no case, and none is found, in which policy language similar to that here involved was construed. However, we think that the provision in question is sufficiently definite to be construed according to its terms, without resort to the rule of liberality in favor of the insured. The provision clearly contemplated that liability would be precluded in any one of three events, to wit:\n1. Unexplained loss, or\n2. Mysterious disappearance or\n3. Loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.\nIt appears plainly that the import of the provision is to bar recovery for unexplained losses or for mysterious disappearances, however they come to light, and for loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.\nIt is not deemed necessary to discuss appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nNew Trial.\nMorris and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brock, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Powell & Powell, by Harrell Powell, Jr,, for plaintiff,",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Allan R. Gitter, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KELLY A. CHADWICK, t/a CHADWICK THRUWAY JEWELERS v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 7021DC481\n(Filed 16 September 1970)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 141\u2014 loss of jewelry from store \u2014 construction of exclusion of coverage for unexplained loss or mysterious disappearance\nIn this action to recover upon an insurance policy for the loss of a quantity of jewelry from plaintiff\u2019s store, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a provision of the policy excluding coverage for \u201cunexplained loss, mysterious disappearance or shortage disclosed on taking inventory\u201d in effect contained only one exclusion for \u201closs or shortage disclosed on taking inventory\u201d and that it should not be concerned with whether the loss was an \u201cunexplained loss\u201d or a \u201cmysterious disappearance\u201d unless it was disclosed on taking inventory, since the policy provision clearly contemplated that liability would be precluded in case of (1) unexplained loss or (2) mysterious disappearance or (3) loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.\n2. Insurance \u00a7 6\u2014 construction of policy \u2014 ambiguity\nThe rules that a policy of insurance is to be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured and that an exception from liability is not favored apply only where the language of the policy is ambiguous and reasonably susceptible of two or more interpretations.\nAppeal by defendant from Henderson, J., 2 March 1970 Session of Forsyth District Court.\nThis was a civil action brought by plaintiff to recover upon an insurance policy issued by defendant. It was alleged that while the policy was in force a quantity of jewelry was removed from plaintiff\u2019s premises by persons unknown. Defendant contended that the alleged loss came within a policy exclusion, to wit:\n\u201c5. This policy insures against all risks of loss of or damage to the above described property arising from any cause whatsoever except: ... (M) Unexplained loss, mysterious disappearance or loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory.\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that the loss was discovered on 24 February 1967, and that the jewelry was taken by an unidentified man and woman who pretended to be customers, and to whom plaintiff had shown the jewelry on IB February. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence further tended to show that the loss was discovered during a \u201cspot check.\u201d Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the loss was unexplained and in fact could have occurred at anytime between 4 February and 24 February 1967.\nFrom a jury verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $1,517.30, defendant appealed to this Court.\nPowell & Powell, by Harrell Powell, Jr,, for plaintiff,\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Allan R. Gitter, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0446-01",
  "first_page_order": 470,
  "last_page_order": 472
}
