{
  "id": 8610598,
  "name": "W. C. ROUSE, Administrator of the Estate of MRS. W. C. ROUSE, Deceased, v. OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rouse v. Old Colony Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1932-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "345",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 345"
    }
  ],
  "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": "107 S. E., 450",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656371
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. E., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0004-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 3372,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.22070319106413e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4311753310714254
    },
    "sha256": "5ef3f6f688972f89c076470ecb368327d4168197dd80c1b91a1ca8b9b4608bd9",
    "simhash": "1:f257e7eeb1195dd0",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. ROUSE, Administrator of the Estate of MRS. W. C. ROUSE, Deceased, v. OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe decisions of this Court are to the effect that the contractual limitation of twelve months in which to bring suit, inserted in a fire insurance policy by virtue of C. S., 6437, is valid and binding. Holly v. London Assurance Co., 170 N. C., 4, 86 S. E., 694; Tatham v. Insurance Co., 181 N. C., 434, 107 S. E., 450.\nThe cause of action is laid upon the policy, and it is manifest that the suit cannot be maintained.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis R. Rubin and Shaw & J ones for plaintiff.",
      "W. S. Wilkinson, Jr., and J. P. Bunn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. ROUSE, Administrator of the Estate of MRS. W. C. ROUSE, Deceased, v. OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated.\n(Filed 19 October, 1932.)\nInsurance P c \u2014 Contractual limitation on time for suit on fire insurance policy is valid.\nThe contractual limitation in a policy of fire insurance that action thereon must be brought within twelve months after loss is valid and binding, O. S., 6437, and a demurrer is properly sustained where the complaint alleges that the suit was not brought within the prescribed period because of representations of the insurer\u2019s agent that the policy was void.\nCivil ACTION, before Cranmer, J., at August Term, 1932, of LeNOIR.\nThe complaint alleged in substance that on 3 September, 1929, the defendant, through its Kinston agency, executed and delivered to the plaintiff\u2019s intestate a certain fire insurance policy covering property described in tbe policy; and furthermore, that on 14 November, 1929, the property was destroyed by fire, and that the loss sustained by reason thereof was $1,500.\nIt was further alleged that the defendant, through its agents, represented to plaintiff\u2019s intestate that the land and property described in the policy of insurance, were covered by a mortgage invalidating the provisions of said policy and declined to make settlement by reason thereof. \u201cThat the said defendant, through its agents, held several conferences with the plaintiff and his counsel, in all of which said conferences the said defendant asserted positively that the premises upon which the building stood and which were destroyed by fire, were covered by a mortgage avoiding the policy, and that no liability existed thereon; that the said plaintiff, acting and relying upon said statements, representations and inducements made by the defendant, through its agents and employees, desisted from bringing suit on said policy, . . . until after the time within which said plaintiff could, under the terms of said policy, bring action, had expired.\u201d The action was instituted on 26 February, 1932.\nThe defendant demurred upon the ground that it appeared from the complaint that the action was not commenced within twelve months after the fire as required by the terms of the policy, and that the complaint did not state a cause of action.\nThe judgment of the court sustained the demurrer upon the ground that it appeared \u201cto the court that the plaintiff did not institute his action on the policy sought to be recovered on within the twelve months next after the fire, and under the terms of said standard fire insurance policy of the State of North Carolina, the type of the policy sued on, it is required, as a condition precedent to the maintenance of any action for recovery thereon that such action shall be commenced within said period.\u201d\nFrom the foregoing judgment plaintiff appealed.\nLouis R. Rubin and Shaw & J ones for plaintiff.\nW. S. Wilkinson, Jr., and J. P. Bunn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0345-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 414
}