{ "id": 8625785, "name": "BERNICE LLOYD, Administratrix of LOUIS LLOYD, Deceased, v. COLUMBUS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Lloyd v. Columbus Mutual Life Insurance", "decision_date": "1931-05-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "722", "last_page": "724", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 N.C. 722" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "222 Pac., 742", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627450 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627133 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0072-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 358, "char_count": 5631, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.97719399190656e-07, "percentile": 0.935528480617982 }, "sha256": "70f8056e48e2bebb7a49264e85fd5be93810ef1da7efb8e5f114499760552686", "simhash": "1:1071871e4d05421d", "word_count": 958 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BERNICE LLOYD, Administratrix of LOUIS LLOYD, Deceased, v. COLUMBUS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BkogdeN, J.\nIs a Ford one and a half ton truck, used principally for hauling milk, \u201ca private automobile of the pleasure-car type ?\u201d\nThe plaintiff insists that the words \u201cprivate automobile of the pleasure-car type\u201d is an ambiguous term requiring parol evidence as an aid to arriving at the sense and meaning of the words used. The Court does not concur in this view. Anderson v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 72; Grant v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 122; Jolley v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 269.\nThere is no material controversy between the parties with reference to the facts. Hence the question whether a Ford truck used principally for hauling milk is a \u201cprivate automobile of the pleasure-car type,\u201d becomes a bald proposition of law.\nThe motor vehicle statute of North Carolina recognizes the difference between automobiles and trucks. This difference appears from C. S., 2612, which levies license fees for motor vehicles. The license fee for an automobile is based upon horse power, and that on motor trucks is based upon carrying capacity or tonnage.\nAn automobile truck was defined in American-La France Fire Engine Co. v. Riordan, 6 Fed. (2d), 964. The Circuit Court for the Second Circuit said: \u201cAn automobile truck is a vehicle for the conveyance for commercial purposes over ordinary roads, and the average type of that kind of vehicle is especially designed both in its propelling mechanism and in its body construction for that function.\u201d Referring to a statute taxing motor trucks, the Supreme Court of Kansas in Filson v. Johnson, 222 Pac., 742, said: \u201cThey are designed for and put to different uses, and the provision defining a motor truck in effect declares that the purpose or use of the vehicle shall determine the classification. If the owner rebuilds and converts an automobile originally designed and sold to be used as a pleasure car, into a motor truck, which he uses to transport commodities, goods and merchandise, produce, or freight, it is his intention and use that governs.\u201d\nThe word \u201ctype\u201d used in the policy implies the idea of classification.\nManifestly, the truck in which plaintiff\u2019s intestate was riding at the time of his death was by intention, use and construction a commercial vehicle and so classified by the North Carolina statute. Consequently the coverage clause of the policy issued by the defendant did not, upon the evidence, include the accidental death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and the ruling of the trial judge is upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "BkogdeN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. 0. Everett and John W. Hester for plaintiff.", "Fuller, Beade & Fuller for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BERNICE LLOYD, Administratrix of LOUIS LLOYD, Deceased, v. COLUMBUS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 May, 1931.)\nInsurance R a \u2014 Construction of policy of accident insurance as to risks covered thereby.\nWhere a policy of insurance provides for the payment of a certain sum to the beneficiary named therein in case the insured dies from accidental bodily injuries resulting from \u201cthe wrecking or disablement of any . . . private automobile of the pleasure-car type,\u201d the language is unambiguous and parol evidence is not admissible to explain the meaning of the words used, and the policy does not cover death from injuries resulting from a wreck of a truck used principally in hauling milk, the word \u201ctype\u201d used in the policy implying classification, and the distinction between automobiles and trucks being recognized by the motor vehicle statute of the State, and where the facts are admitted the question of whether death resulted from a risk covered by the policy becomes a proposition of law.\nCivil actioN, before Grady, J., at January Special Term,. 1931, of Dubham.\nPlaintiff\u2019s intestate, Louis Lloyd, was killed on 23 November, 1929, and at the time of his death he held an insurance policy issued by the defendant on 28 February, 1929. The policy provided an indemnity of $1,000 for death from accidental bodily injuries if such death resulted from \u201cthe wrecking or disablement of any private horse-drawn vehicle, or private automobile of the pleasure-ear type in which the insured is riding or driving,\u201d etc. The evidence tended to show that at the time of his death the deceased was riding in a 1929 Model A, one and a half ton Ford truck. This truck had an enclosed cab with a seat that would accommodate three passengers comfortably. The owner of the truck testified that fit was used for hauling passengers and truck. He said: \u201cThere was no place at the back for passengers to ride. That was to carry what we wanted to haul. We had a body on the back. Sometimes I took my. family to church on it. . . . We had a car other than this truck.On the back is a truck body which was used for hauling milk from the Lawrence Dairy on the milk route. It was used for most anything that come to hand and done more hauling of milk than anything else. I also had a five-passenger Ford touring ear. That was the principal pleasure car of the family. : . . There was a wreck.\u201d Two other men were riding in the truck with the deceased at the time of the wreck.\nThe third issue was as follows: \u201cWas plaintiff\u2019s intestate killed by the wrecking and disablement of a private automobile of the pleasure-car type in which insured was riding as alleged in the complaint ?\u201d\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s testimony the trial judge intimated that he would give a peremptory instruction directing the jury to answer the third issue \u201cNo.\u201d The policy provided a benefit of $50 for death due to accident, and the trial judge further intimated that he would instruct the jury to answer the fourth issue \u201c$50.\u201d\nFrom judgment upon the verdict awarding plaintiff the sum of $50 she appealed.\nB. 0. Everett and John W. Hester for plaintiff.\nFuller, Beade & Fuller for defendant." }, "file_name": "0722-01", "first_page_order": 790, "last_page_order": 792 }