{
  "id": 8528842,
  "name": "JOEL PETTEWAY, JR. v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, a member of the SEIBELS BRUCE GROUP, and GEICO, a/k/a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Petteway v. South Carolina Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1989-05-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 884SC1098",
  "first_page": "776",
  "last_page": "779",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 776"
    }
  ],
  "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": "352 S.E. 2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12168660
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/84/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559393,
        8559375,
        8559408,
        8559353,
        8559421,
        8559359
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0594-04",
        "/nc/275/0594-03",
        "/nc/275/0594-05",
        "/nc/275/0594-01",
        "/nc/275/0594-06",
        "/nc/275/0594-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 876",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548767
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550737
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0452-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 5277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.1522521994222586e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8627400670849922
    },
    "sha256": "67298f008c1847a2b87c0434d8c0b70f3b5b0ff9ffffa83e815add57182176e8",
    "simhash": "1:39a368a7011f9edc",
    "word_count": 807
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:43.799233+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge COZORT concurs.",
      "Judge PARKER concurs in the result."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOEL PETTEWAY, JR. v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, a member of the SEIBELS BRUCE GROUP, and GEICO, a/k/a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE\u2019S INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nThe only question before us being whether plaintiff\u2019s claim to the benefit of defendants\u2019 uninsured motorist coverages is legally enforceable under G.S. 20-279.21(b)(3) and the record showing without contradiction that plaintiff\u2019s injuries did not result from a collision between motor vehicles, the order is correct and we affirm it.\nIn personal injury cases based upon the negligence of an unidentified motorist, G.S. 20-279.21(b)(3) authorizes recovery under the uninsured motorist provision of automobile liability insurance policies written in this state only if the injuries resulted from a \u201ccollision between motor vehicles,\u201d and it has been held that the coverage does not apply when the claimant\u2019s vehicle merely overturns or runs into something other than a vehicle, such as a ditch. East v. Reserve Insurance Co., 18 N.C. App. 452, 197 S.E. 2d 225 (1973); Hendricks v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 5 N.C. App. 181, 167 S.E. 2d 876, cert. denied, 275 N.C. 594, --- S.E. 2d \u2014 (1969). Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of these holdings; his only argument is that since the legislature\u2019s apparent purpose in enacting the collision requirement was to prevent fraudulent claims based upon the alleged negligence of fictitious motorists that the requirement is dispensed with when, as here, a disinterested eyewitness can verify that an unidentified motorist was involved. The plain wording of the above quoted statutory provision, as well as the foregoing decisions, require that this argument be rejected.\nIn affirming the order, however, we do not approve statements in the cited cases indicating that the \u201ccollision\u201d required by the statute for uninsured motorist coverage is with the unidentified vehicle. In reaching that conclusion the panel apparently gave more weight to the policy language about a \u201chit-and-run automobile\u201d than it did to the statutory terms, which no policy provision can override. The statutory phrase \u201ccollision between motor vehicles\u201d is not restricted to any particular vehicles, restricting it by interpolation is not our office, and there is no reason to suppose that in using that unqualified phrase that the General Assembly intended to exclude from the statute\u2019s beneficent provisions victims of motor vehicle collisions caused by unidentified motorists whose vehicles have no collision. The phrase is not ambiguous and the clear indication is rather that the legislature intended to make the provisions available to all insureds who are injured in motor vehicular collisions caused by unidentified motorists. Furthermore, the statements were unnecessary to those decisions, neither of which involved a collision between motor vehicles of any kind, and their apparent approval in McNeil v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 84 N.C. App. 438, 352 S.E. 2d 915 (1987) was qualified, to say the least, since the collision requirement was deemed to have been met by plaintiff\u2019s vehicle colliding with a vehicle that was hit by the unidentified vehicle. In any event a motor vehicular collision of some kind is certainly essential to plaintiff\u2019s case and no such collision occurred.\nAffirmed.\nJudge COZORT concurs.\nJudge PARKER concurs in the result.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Anderson, Cox, Collier & Ennis, by Donald W. Ennis, for defendant appellee South Carolina Insurance Company.",
      "Marshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley, by Ronald H. Wood-ruff for defendant appellee GEICO."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOEL PETTEWAY, JR. v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, a member of the SEIBELS BRUCE GROUP, and GEICO, a/k/a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE\u2019S INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 884SC1098\n(Filed 16 May 1989)\nInsurance \u00a7 69 \u2014 uninsured motorist coverage \u2014 unidentified motorist-absence of collision\nPlaintiff was not entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of automobile insurance policies for injuries caused by an unidentified motorist where the record shows that his injuries did not result from a collision between motor vehicles even though a disinterested witness can verify that an unidentified motorist was involved.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Reid, Judge. Order entered 25 July 1986 in Superior Court, ONSLOW County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 1989.\nOn 16 April 1985 plaintiff was seriously injured when an automobile he was driving in Onslow County overturned after being forced off the highway by an unidentified motorist. Plaintiff\u2019s vehicle did not contact any other vehicle. The incident was witnessed by another motorist, Michael R. Castracane, who stayed until the police arrived and assisted in removing plaintiff from the wreck. The car plaintiff was driving, owned by his father-in-law, was insured by defendant GEICO, his own car was insured by defendant South Carolina Insurance Company, and each policy had the uninsured motorist coverage mandated by G.S. 20-279.21(b)(3). Plaintiff sued defendants to recover those coverages and, after the foregoing facts were conclusively established by discovery, the suit was dismissed by an order of summary judgment in which the judge noted that except for being restrained by the law there was sufficient independent verification of the unidentified motorist\u2019s existence and negligence to warrant the claim being made.\nLanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for plaintiff appellant.\nAnderson, Cox, Collier & Ennis, by Donald W. Ennis, for defendant appellee South Carolina Insurance Company.\nMarshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley, by Ronald H. Wood-ruff for defendant appellee GEICO."
  },
  "file_name": "0776-01",
  "first_page_order": 806,
  "last_page_order": 809
}