{
  "id": 8621352,
  "name": "BADIE H. CONYARD v. LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Conyard v. Life & Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1933-04-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 506"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S. E., 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627450
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S. E., 693",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627133
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S. E., 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 722",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625785
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0722-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S. E., 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "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": "95 U. S., 673",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3383149
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/95/0673-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2376,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0500677315280525e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7552644961154106
    },
    "sha256": "7cd80adf5c3972a641fda95fdc98a59011d39448263fc2bde91a820e8576355e",
    "simhash": "1:361d9550c9c61a9f",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BADIE H. CONYARD v. LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIs a private Chevrolet one and one-half ton motor driven truck a \u201cprivate motor driven car\u201d within the meaning of the policy in suit? The case was made to turn on the answer to this question in the court below, and we are disposed to agree with his Honor that it is.\nThe term \u201cmotor driven car\u201d is broad enough to include a motor driven truck, and we cannot say a narrower interpretation was intended by the parties. The rule of construction is, that when an insurance policy is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, the one more favorable to the assured will be adopted. \u201cThe policy having been prepared by the insurers, it should be construed most strongly against them.\u201d Bank v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S., 673; Jolley v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 269, 154 S. E., 400; Underwood v. Ins. Co., 185 N. C., 538, 117 S. E., 790.\nThere was nothing said in Lloyd v. Ins. Co., 200 N. C., 722, 158 S. E., 386, Anderson v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 72, 147 S. E., 693, or Gant v. Ins. Co., 197 N. C., 122, 147 S. E., 740, which militates against the position here taken.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Long & Long for plaintiff.",
      "Long & Ross for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BADIE H. CONYARD v. LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE.\n(Filed 12 April, 1933.)\n1. Insurance R a\u2014\nA private one and one-half ton motor driven truck is a \u201cprivate motor driven car\u201d within the meaning of that term as used in a policy of accident insurance.\n2. Insurance E b\u2014\nWhere an insurance policy is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, the one more favorable to the insured will be adopted.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, Special Judge, at January Term, 1933, of AlamaNCE.\nSimon Conyard was fatally injured 19 April, 1932, by accidental means when the private Chevrolet one and one-half ton motor driven truck, in which he was driving at the time, struck the embankment of the highway and threw him violently to the hard surface portion of the road. The deceased held an insurance policy with the defendant company which provided an indemnity of $1,000 for death from accidental bodily injuries resulting from the \u201ccollision of or by any accident to any private drawn vehicle or private motor driven car in which the insured is riding or driving.\u201d The plaintiff, wife of the deceased, was named as beneficiary in said policy.\nThere was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the\u2019defendant appeals, assigning error.\nLong & Long for plaintiff.\nLong & Ross for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 572,
  "last_page_order": 573
}