{
  "id": 8571422,
  "name": "DAVIS H. BOWEN v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bowen v. American Home Assurance Co.",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "577",
  "last_page": "578",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 N.C. 577"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "5d18e38d5aff9250bfa50a1b099012dd440b4ece803f50d8ba0809014658e44e",
    "simhash": "1:b3378b8f7832957c",
    "word_count": 387
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:58.690444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVIS H. BOWEN v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThere was ample evidence that, during the late afternoon of July 10, 1959, there was a storm, consisting of a hard wind, hail and rain, in the vicinity of plaintiff\u2019s 6.44-acre tobacco field; and that, as a result of said storm, plaintiff\u2019s tobacco was severely damaged.\nThe critical issue with reference to defendant\u2019s liability to plaintiff under the policy, was whether plaintiff\u2019s tobacco was damaged by hail and, if so, whether plaintiff\u2019s tobacco was damaged \u201cto the extent of 5% or more by hail only.\u201d As to this, the evidence offered by plaintiff and defendant was in sharp conflict. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show the damage to plaintiff's tobacco was caused solely by wind. However, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we think the evidence was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s finding (on the first issue) in plaintiff\u2019s favor.\nConsideration of each of defendant\u2019s assignments of error discloses that error, if any, in the conduct of the trial, was not sufficiently prejudicial to defendant to justify the award of a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Perry & Kittrell for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Joyner, Howison & Mitchell for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVIS H. BOWEN v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 1 November, 1961.)\nInsurance \u00a7 29\u2014\nThe evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is held, sufficient to support the jury\u2019s findings that plaintiff\u2019s tobacco was damaged to the extent of five per cent or more by hail alone within the provisions of the policy of hail insurance sued on.\nAppeal by defendant from Hall, J., March Civil Term, 1961, of Vakce.\nCivil action to recover on CHIAA Standard Crop-Hail Policy, issued by defendant to plaintiff, on account of damage to plaintiff\u2019s tobacco crop allegedly caused by wind and hail. The court submitted, and the jury answered, these issues: \u201c1. Was the tobacco crop in question directly damaged by hail alone on July 10, 1959, in an amount of at least five per cent? Answer: Yes. 2. If so, in what percentage was the tobacco crop in question directly damaged by hail and wind simultaneously accompanied by hail? Answer: 30%. 3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $1,170.00.\u201d\nFrom judgment for plaintiff, in accordance with the verdict, defendant appealed.\nPerry & Kittrell for plaintiff, appellee.\nJoyner, Howison & Mitchell for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0577-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 616
}