{ "id": 8527980, "name": "BIG B TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. U.S. INSURANCE GROUP", "name_abbreviation": "Big B Transportation, Inc. v. U.S. Insurance Group", "decision_date": "1989-03-21", "docket_number": "No. 8825SC679", "first_page": "233", "last_page": "236", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "93 N.C. App. 233" } ], "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": "280 S.E. 2d 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "908" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575090 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 S.E. 2d 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2517981 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" }, { "page": "522" }, { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561396 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" }, { "page": "348" }, { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0348-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 376, "char_count": 6559, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20560001760720412 }, "sha256": "6ddba42c27f13002cc0200b99abd9bbbe946210a9e629acb134554dc699acfa2", "simhash": "1:0f2514c2ebb5ade3", "word_count": 1066 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:43.799233+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Wells and Johnson concur." ], "parties": [ "BIG B TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. U.S. INSURANCE GROUP" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nDefendant, U.S. Insurance Group, appeals from an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff, Big B Transportation, Inc. The judge ruled that defendant insured plaintiff for losses resulting from a fire aboard one of plaintiff\u2019s trucks on 24 February 1985. We reverse and remand with instructions that the trial judge enter summary judgment for defendant.\nI\nPlaintiff, Big B Transportation, Inc. (\u201cBig B\u201d), is a trucking company. On 11 November 1984, Big B entered into an insurance contract with defendant, U.S. Insurance Group (\u201cU.S. Insurance\u201d). Under the policy, U.S. Insurance agreed to provide motor truck cargo coverage to Big B for a period of one year. In part, the policy provided that:\nThis policy covers the legal liability of the Insured as a carrier under bills of lading or shipping receipts issued by the Insured with respect to shipments of lawful goods and merchandise . . . while such property is in the custody or control of the Insured, and while in the custody of connecting carriers. . . .\nOn 22 February 1985, Big B entered into a trip lease agreement with Cargo Carriers, Inc. (\u201cCargo Carriers\u201d) to transport furniture from Lexington, North Carolina, to various points in the Midwest. Big B furnished the truck for this shipment, and its employee, Alan K. Mummert, drove the truck. On 24 February 1985, a fire broke out in the truck\u2019s trailer, damaging the furniture.\nThrough its own insurer, Cargo Carriers paid the claims made by the owners of the damaged property. Cargo Carriers then brought a subrogation action against Big B. On 20 August 1987, Big B filed a declaratory action against U.S. Insurance, seeking to determine whether the policy it had purchased from U.S. Insurance covered the trip lease agreement. (On 30 April 1985, Big B added insurance coverage specifically covering such agreements.) Both Big B and U.S. Insurance prayed for summary judgment on this question. In an order dated 13 May 1988, the trial judge granted summary judgment for Big B. U.S. Insurance appeals.\nII .\nThe issue on appeal is the proper construction of the insurance policy language quoted above. U.S. Insurance contends that the policy clearly provides coverage only if Big B satisfied two conditions: first, that it acted as a \u201ccarrier,\u201d and second, that it issued a bill of lading or shipping receipt. Big B argues that the language of the policy is ambiguous. It contends that the phrase \u201cissued by the insured\u201d modifies only \u201cshipping receipts,\u201d and that, therefore, U.S. Insurance covered the legal liability of Big B under any bill of lading while property was in the custody and control of Big B. Because we reject Big B\u2019s reading of the \u201cbill of lading\u201d language, we do not decide whether Big B or Cargo Carriers was the carrier of the furniture shipment damaged on 24 February 1985.\nInsurance companies select the words used in their policies; hence, any ambiguity arising out of that wording is construed against insurers and in favor of beneficiaries. See Wachovia Bank and Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 276 N.C. 348, 354, 172 S.E. 2d 518, 522 (1970). Ambiguity is not established, however, by the mere fact that the insurer and the beneficiary assert different constructions of the policy. Id. While the fact that the parties dispute the interpretation of the policy is some indication that ambiguity exists, ambiguity will not be established unless this court determines that the parties\u2019 varying interpretations fairly and reasonably arise from the policy language. See St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Freeman-White Associates, Inc., 322 N.C. 77, 83, 366 S.E. 2d 480, 484 (1988); Westchester Fire Insurance, 276 N.C. at 348, 172 S.E. 2d at 522; see also Maddox v. Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Co., 303 N.C. 648, 650, 280 S.E. 2d 907, 908 (1981).\nIn our view, Big B unreasonably strains the language of the policy. We read the words \u201cbill of lading\u201d and \u201cshipping receipts\u201d as standing in apposition to one another, both being modified, therefore, by the phrase \u201cissued by the insured.\u201d We think this is the only reasonable way to read the policy language. Our view is strengthened by the synonymous meanings of \u201cbill of lading\u201d and \u201cshipping receipt.\u201d As defined by the Uniform Commercial Code, \u201c \u2018Bill of Lading\u2019 means a document evidencing the receipt of goods for shipment issued by a person engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding goods, and includes an airbill.\u201d See N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 25-1-201(6) (1986) (emphasis added).\nIn Westchester Fire Insurance, our Supreme Court cautioned that courts must enforce contracts as the parties have made them and must not, under the guise of interpreting ambiguous provisions, remake contracts so as to impose liability on insurance companies for which the policyholders did not pay. 276 N.C. at 354, 172 S.E. 2d at 522. In our view, Big B has sought to have this court remake its contract with U.S. Insurance, and that we will not do.\nIII\nNo bill of lading or shipping receipt was issued by Big B for the furniture it transported under the trip lease agreement with Cargo Carriers. Consequently, the trial judge erred in ruling that U.S. Insurance had liability under the policy. The order granting summary judgment is reversed and remanded, with instructions that the trial judge enter summary judgment for U.S. Insurance.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BECTON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sigmon, Sigmon & Isenhower, by W. Gene Sigmon, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Golding, Crews, Meekins & Gordon, by Rodney Dean, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BIG B TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. U.S. INSURANCE GROUP\nNo. 8825SC679\n(Filed 21 March 1989)\nInsurance \u00a7 6.1\u2014 insurance purchased by trucking company \u2014 trip lease agreement not covered\nAn insurance policy purchased by plaintiff trucking company from defendant insurer did not cover a trip lease agreement whereby plaintiff furnished another company a truck and a driver to transport furniture from North Carolina to various points in the Midwest, since the policy in question provided coverage for plaintiffs legal liability \u201cas a carrier under bills of lading or shipping receipts issued by [plaintiff]\u201d; \u201cbills of lading\u201d and \u201cshipping receipts\u201d were both modified by the phrase \u201cissued by the insured\u201d; and no bill of lading or shipping receipt was issued by plaintiff for the furniture it transported under the trip lease agreement.\nAppeal by defendant from Crawley (Jack), Judge. Judgment entered 13 May 1988 in Superior Court, CATAWBA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 January 1988.\nSigmon, Sigmon & Isenhower, by W. Gene Sigmon, for plaintiff-appellee.\nGolding, Crews, Meekins & Gordon, by Rodney Dean, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0233-01", "first_page_order": 263, "last_page_order": 266 }