{
  "id": 8571180,
  "name": "ALMETA SAUNDERS v. CHARLOTTE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Saunders v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1967-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "110",
  "last_page": "111",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 N.C. 110"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S.E. 2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574029
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0459-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2851,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29872880619680914
    },
    "sha256": "362184ba3b186f1a44bad340805575be04d6e255388aae22eeaf30b026f2072e",
    "simhash": "1:5d6226fb709db548",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALMETA SAUNDERS v. CHARLOTTE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nThe coroner, who was not qualified as an expert, opined that the child died by smothering. No signs of violence were found on the body. No other evidence of the cause of death or the condition of the body was offered.\nAn insurance company generally has the right to fix the conditions upon which it will become liable, and the patron has the right to accept or refuse them. Here the policy is explicit that the defendant will pay additional (double indemnity) benefits only upon conditions not here shown. There was no evidence of \u201cvisible bodily injuries\u201d nor of \u201cviolent, external means\u201d causing the death of the insured.\nUnder well stated opinions of this Court, as set forth in Langley v. Insurance Co., 261 N.C. 459, 135 S.E. 2d 38, and Henderson v. Indemnity Co., 268 N.C. 129, 150 S.E. 2d 17, the plaintiff cannot recover.\nIn the judgment of nonsuit, there was\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton, Attorney for plaintiff appellant.",
      "J. J. Shields, Attorney for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALMETA SAUNDERS v. CHARLOTTE LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 November, 1967.)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn insurance company generally bas tbe right to fix the conditions upon which it will become liable, and the patron the right to accept or refuse them.\n2. Insurance \u00a7 35\u2014\nThe policy in suit provided additional benefits if insured sustained visible bodily injuries solely through external, violent and accidental means, resulting directly and independently of all other causes in death. The evidence was to the effect that the five-month-old insured was found dead in his bed in which he had slept with his eight-year-old sister, and the only evidence as to the cause of death was that the child had smothered. Held: The evidence fails to bring insurer\u2019s liability within the additional coverage.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Latham, S.J., and a jury at the 27 February 1967 Civil Session, Superior Court of RaNBOLph County.\nA little five-months-old boy was insured by his mother, to the extent of $500.00, with defendant Insurance Company. The policy provided that if the insured \u201csustained . . . visible bodily injuries, solely through external, violent and accidental means, resulting, directly and independently of all other causes, in the death of the insured\u201d, the company would pay an additional benefit of $500.00.\nEarly in the morning of 29 July 1963, the little fellow was found dead in his bed by his mother. He had slept the night before with his eight-year-old sister. No signs of violence were found on his body, and no autopsy was performed.\nThe coroner, over the objection of defendant, gave it as his opinion that the baby died by smothering.\nThe defendant paid the beneficiary $500.00 under the policy, and returned some disputed premiums, but refused to pay double indemnity benefits. The plaintiff sued for them and, upon nonsuit, appealed.\nOttway Burton, Attorney for plaintiff appellant.\nJ. J. Shields, Attorney for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0110-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 147
}