{ "id": 8574951, "name": "CEDRIC EARL NEWCOMB and ANNIE NEWCOMB v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Newcomb v. Great American Insurance", "decision_date": "1963-10-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "402", "last_page": "406", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 402" } ], "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": "130 S.E. 2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559355 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 P. 2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Cal. Rptr. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 S.W. 2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1693974 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/232/1020-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 So. 2d 307", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9857813 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/141/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.W. 2d 647", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 So. 2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9891711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/139/0785-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 So. 2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8819450 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/239/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 So. 2d 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1706085 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala-app/41/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.W. 2d 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10166438 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/340/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 22", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 F. 2d 802", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 941466 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/80/0802-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611166 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 F. Supp. 620", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 290954 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/92/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 F. 2d 230", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 226354 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/297/0230-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 529, "char_count": 11392, "ocr_confidence": 0.428, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.273624917286509e-07, "percentile": 0.7840433940357141 }, "sha256": "53c7612d857d0db4253b45284afd0899a1567f9edac225c6abd7c10ad9831a49", "simhash": "1:d967a86880f7f74d", "word_count": 1865 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CEDRIC EARL NEWCOMB and ANNIE NEWCOMB v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, J.\n\u201cPart II \u2014 Expenses .for Medical Services,\u201d on which plaintiffs base their first cause of action, provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cGoverage C \u2014 Medical Payments. To pay .all reasonable expenses incurred . . . for necessary medical, . . . ambulance, hospital, . . . and funeral services:\n\u201cDivision 1. To or for the named insured and each relative \u00a1who sustains bodily injury, . . . including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called \u2018bodily injury,\u2019 caused by accident, while occupying or through being struck by an automobile; (Our italics)\n\u201cDivision 2. To or for any other person who sustains bodily injury, Caused by accident while occupying (.a) the owned automobile . . .; or (b) a non-oiwned automobile, i;f the bodily injury results from (1) its operation or occupancy by .the named insured ... or (2) its operation or occupancy by a relative, . . .\n\u201cExclusions. This policy does not apply under Part II to. bodily injury: (a) . . .; ('b) sustained by the named insured or a relative (1) while occupying /an automobile owned by or furnished for /the regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than an automobile defined herein as an \u2018owned automobile,\u2019 or (2) . . .\u201d (Our italics).\n\u201cRelative\u201d is defined- in \u201cPant I \u2014 Liability\u201d of the policy as \u201ca relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household.\u201d It is expressly provided that this definition of \u201crelative\u201d applies to Part II and Part III.\nPlaintiffs contend they and their infant daughter were not relatives oif the named -insured who were residents of the same household- and therefore plaintiffs are -entitled to recover under Division 2 .of Coverage G.\nPlaintiffs, daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Gray, are co-owners of the Ford. They .are /relatives of the named insured (Mrs. Gray), the daughter by (blood .and the son-in-law by marriage. Wendy, who sustained the \u201c-bodily injury,\u201d was the granddaughter -of Mrs. -Gray and therefore a relative of the named insured by blood. In Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v. Jackson, 4 Cir., 297 F. 2d 230, it was held that the mother-in-law of the named .insured, residing with (him in the same \u00a1household, was hiis \u201crelative\u201d within a 'S/imilar policy provision. In accord: Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (U.S.D.C. Md.), 92 F. Supp. 620.\nWhile the word \u201cresident\u201d bias different shades of meaning depending upon context, Barker v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 397, 399, 85 S.E. 2d 305, we think it clear, under the stipulated facts, that plaintiffs, their infant daughter and Mrs. Gray were living together on June 12, 1960, as members of one household, and were then, residents of the same household within the terms of the .policy. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. James, 4 Cir., 80 F. 2d 802; Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra; Ransom v. Casualty Co., 250 N.C. 60, 108 S.E. 2d 22; Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume 19, p. 700 et seq. Their status is determinable on the 'basis of conditions existing .at \u2018the time the casualty occurred. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ward (Mo.), 340 S.W. 2d 635.\nPlaintiffs, in their allegations, base their first cause of action on the coverage provided in Division 2 of Coverage C. However, this coverage is provided to or for \u201cany other person,\u201d that is, to .a person other than the named insured or a relative. In view of our decision that plaintiffs and their infant daughter were relatives of the named insured on June 12, 1960, Division 2 of Coverage C has no application. The coverage applicable -to plaintiffs and their infant daughter as relatives of the named insured is that provided in Division 1 of Coverage C. Hence, it is appropriate to consider whether .plaintiffs are entitled to recover under the provisions thereof.\nIn our view, the only reasonable construction of the pertinent provisions of Division 1 of Coverage C is as follows: Division 1 of Coverage C provides coverage to or for .the named insured and each relative who sustains \u201cbodily injury\u201d while occupying .any automobile except (1) an automobile owned by either the named insured or by any relative, and (2) an automobile furnished for the regular use of the named insured or any relative, other than an automobile defined in the policy ais an \u201cowned automobile.\u201d Decisions supporting this construction of the coverage provided by Division 1 of Coverage C include the following: Johns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (Ala.), 146 So. 2d 323; Moore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (Miss.), 121 So. 2d 125; Dickerson v. Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Texas (La.), 139 So. 2d 785; Mallinger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Iowa), 111 N.W. 2d 647; O\u2019Brien v. Halifax Insurance Co. of Massachusetts (Fla.), 141 So. 2d 307; Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hyde (Ark.), 342 S.W. 2d 295; McMillan v. State Farm Insurance Company, 27 Cal. Rptr. 125; Morton v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (Cal.), 263 P. 2d 337. Also, see Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra.\n\u2022 The only automobile described ami the policy ais \u201cowned lautomoibile\u201d was Mrs. Gray\u2019\u00ae Oldsmobile. Plaintiffs\u2019 infant daughter, a, relative of the named insured, wiae injured fatally while occupying (the Ford automobile owned by relatives oif the named insured, the plaintiffs herein. Hence, plaintiffs may not recover under* Division 1 of Coverage C.\nPlaintiffs, in their \u25a0allegations, -base their second cause of action on \u201cPart III \u2014 Physical Damage,\u201d which, in pertinent part, pawidee:\n\u201cCoverage E \u2014 Collision. To pay for loss caused by collision to the owned automobile or \u00a1to a non-owned automobile . . .\u201d (Our italics).\n\u201cNon-owned automobile\u201d is defined in Part III as \u201c.a private passenger automobile . . . not owned by . . . either the named .insured or any relative . . .\u201d (Our italics).\nWe perceive no ambiguity in the pertinent provisions of Coverage E. Parker v. Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 115, 130 S.E. 2d 36. No collision coverage is provided for plaintiffs' Ford. Plaintiffs\u2019 Ford was not the automobile described in tire policy as the \u201cowned automobile.\u201d Nor was it a \u201cnJon-owned automobile,\u201d as defined in the policy. On the contrary, it wais an automobile owned by relatives, to wit, the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs may not recover under Coverage E.\nFor reasons stated, the judgment of the court below, as to both causes of action, is reversed.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Henson P. Barnes for plaintiff appellees.", "Taylor, Allen & Warren and John H. Kerr, III, for defendant appellant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CEDRIC EARL NEWCOMB and ANNIE NEWCOMB v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY\n(Filed 30 October 1963.)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 47\u2014\nA granddaughter living with her .parents in her grandmother\u2019s home at the time of the accident is a relative \u201cresiding\u201d in the grandmother\u2019s home notwithstanding the arrangement is temporary and the parents maintain a home to which they intend to repair upon the return home of \u25a0another member of the grandmother\u2019s family, and therefore the granddaughter does not -come within the provisions of a policy issued to the grandmother for expenses and medical .payments to persons other than the named insured and her relatives resident of the same household.\n2. Same\u2014\nThat section of a policy of insurance providing coverage for medical payments to the named insured and each relative of the named insured, .but excluding liability for such injuries while occupying an automobile owned by insured or one furnished for the regular use of insured or any relative, held not to cover bodily injury to insured\u2019s granddaughter occurring while insured was driving a vehicle owned by the granddaughter\u2019s parents.\nS. Insurance \u00a7 48b\u2014\nA policy of collision insurance covering the specified automobile owned by insured or any other automobile unless such other vehicle is owned by insured or any relative does not cover a vehicle owned by insured\u2019s daughter and son-in-law and damaged in an accident while being driven by insured.\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., March Session 1963 of Wayne.\nPlaintiff's action is to recover on .an .automobile insurance policy issued October 1, 1959, by defendant to Mrs. Willie Gray, designated therein as \u201cNamed Insured,\u201d in which Mrs. Gray\u2019s Oldsmobife is designated \u201c\u2019owned' automobile.\u201d The policy was in full force and effect on June 12, 1960.\nOn June 12,1960, plaintiffs, husband .and wife, owned a Ford. Plaintiff Annie Newcomb is the daughter of Mrs. Gray. On, said date, Mrs. Gray wais operating plaintiff\u00a9\u2019 Ford. Wendy Gray Newcomb, four months old, was a passenger in the Ford. Wendy was plaintiffs\u2019 daughter and \u201clived with her parents.\u201d While operated by Mm Gray, the Ford ran off the road. On account thereof, Wendy received fatal injuries and plaintiffs\u2019 Ford was damaged.\nIn separately stated causes of action, plaintiffs .alleged they were entitled to recover (1) for medical, ambulance, hospital and funeral expenses incurred by them on account of their infant daughter\u2019s fatal injuries, and (2) on account of collision or upset damage to their Ford.\nPlaintiffs base their first cause of .action on Part II, Coverage C, and their second cause of action on Part III, Coverage E, of said policy.\nThe case wais submitted on stipulated facts .and -the .policy. Io addition to facts included in the foregoing statement, the following facts were stipulated:\n\u201c2. Mrs. Tassie Thompson Gray (the person designated in said policy as Mbs. Willie Gray) was at the time the above policy was issued and at the time of the accident a widow and mother of three children. Both boyis were away from home. John Gray, the oldest, was in the Navy, and Bobby Gray was in school at the University of North Carolina.. Her daughter, Annie Gray New-comb, one of the plaintiffs herein, was married in August, 1957. After the wedding, Annie Gray Newcomb and 'her husband, Cedric Earl Newcomb, the other plaintiff herein, moved into .the home of Mrs. Gray. In April, 1958, Cedric Newcomb and his wife, Annie, the plaintiffs, renovated .and furnished a house which belonged to Mrs. Gray and which was about one-quarter of a mile distance from Mrs. Gray\u2019s home. The plaintiffs lived in this house until March 1959, when. Mrs. Gray\u2019s mother, who had been living with Mrs. Gray, died. Plaintiffs then returned to Mrs. Gray\u2019s home and lived with her until about June or July of 1959, when Bobby Gray came home from the University. Plaintiffs moved .out of Mrs. Gray\u2019s home .and into their own cottage and stayed .there about one month until Bobby Gray returned to. the University, at which time the plaintiffs moved 'back into the house with Mrs. Gray and slept, ate, lived and stayed there up to the time of the accident, June 12, 1960. At all times herein mentioned, and since April, 1958, the plaintiffs\u2019 cottage has been kept 'dean .and furnished and all utilities have been kept on -and ready for habitation. The plaintiffs planned to remove themselves from Mrs. Gray\u2019s house and into their cottage when John Gray got out of the Navy or Bobby Gray got out of college, which would have been in 1961.\u201d\nPertinent policy provisions will be set forth in the opinion.\nIt was .stipulated that plaintiffs, if entitled to recover, were entitled to recover $354.50 on their first cause of action and $650.00 on their isecond cause of action.\nThe court entered judgment -that plaintiffs have .and recover of defendant $1,004.50, together with interest and costs. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nHenson P. Barnes for plaintiff appellees.\nTaylor, Allen & Warren and John H. Kerr, III, for defendant appellant" }, "file_name": "0402-01", "first_page_order": 442, "last_page_order": 446 }