{
  "id": 2506024,
  "name": "GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. THELMA ARNOLD LONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance v. Long",
  "decision_date": "1992-10-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 516PA91",
  "first_page": "477",
  "last_page": "479",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 N.C. 477"
    }
  ],
  "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": "409 S.E.2d 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. App. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 514",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2537537,
        2539785,
        2542308,
        2540999
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0577-01",
        "/nc/328/0577-02",
        "/nc/328/0577-03",
        "/nc/328/0577-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "400 S.E.2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2542714
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "150"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "223"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2506105
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "112"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 514",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2537537,
        2539785,
        2542308,
        2540999
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0577-01",
        "/nc/328/0577-02",
        "/nc/328/0577-03",
        "/nc/328/0577-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "400 S.E.2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "53"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2542714
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "153"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "223"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2506105
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "113"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.986455223530553e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5027538285050596
    },
    "sha256": "a19260c40781644041d9cd6b703b523b2ca766228496d2b242232bbc42de8252",
    "simhash": "1:9934164afc33014e",
    "word_count": 629
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:54:56.199642+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. THELMA ARNOLD LONG"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nThe sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the wife of the owner-insured of a policy issued by plaintiff is entitled as a Class I insured to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, when the wife was injured while riding in another car owned by her and insured by another carrier under a separate policy not containing UIM coverage.\nPlaintiff issued a policy containing UIM coverage to John Long, defendant\u2019s husband. The policy listed one 1986 Ford pickup truck as the only automobile on the policy. On 20 February 1988, defendant was a passenger in the 1978 Cadillac owned by her and driven by Tony Prigden Radford with her permission, when the Cadillac was hit by an auto driven by James David Parker, which had minimum limits coverage. The Cadillac was insured by an Allstate Insurance Company policy that did not contain UIM coverage. Defendant filed suit against Parker for damages and against plaintiff for UIM benefits under her husband\u2019s policy. Defendant alleges that her damages exceed the $25,000 tendered by Parker\u2019s insurance company, Interstate Casualty Insurance Company.\nUnder the husband\u2019s policy issued by plaintiff, UIM coverage is available to a Class I \u201cinsured\u201d person, which is defined as \u201c1. You or any family member.\u201d \u201cFamily member\u201d is defined as \u201ca person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.\u201d Under this definition, defendant is a Class I insured person. The Declarations page of plaintiff\u2019s policy also explicitly lists defendant as an insured by reference to her birth date and the indication \u201cMF\u201d \u2014 married female \u2014 under the section \u201cDRIVERS.\u201d\nThese facts differ in only one pertinent respect from the facts in the Court\u2019s recent opinion in Bass v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 109, 418 S.E.2d 221 (1992). In that case, the injured insured was an owner-insured, while defendant is the wife of an owner-insured. In both cases, however, the injured parties are Class I insured persons. As a result, we hold that the reasoning of Bass, 332 N.C. at 112, 418 S.E.2d at 223, and Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 150, 400 S.E.2d 44, 51, reh\u2019g denied, 328 N.C. 577, 403 S.E.2d 514 (1991) controls this case. For the reasons stated in those cases, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Justice MEYER\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Bass v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 109, 113, 418 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1992), and Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 328 N.C. 139, 153, 400 S.E.2d 44, 53, reh\u2019g denied, 328 N.C. 577, 403 S.E.2d 514 (1991).",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Justice MEYER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Valentine, Adams, Lamar, Etheridge & Sykes, by Raymond M. Sykes, Jr., for defendant appellee.",
      "Nichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Paul D. Coates and ToNola D. Brown, for plaintiff appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. THELMA ARNOLD LONG\nNo. 516PA91\n(Filed 1 October 1992)\nInsurance \u00a7 528 (NCI4th) \u2014 wife of owner-insured \u2014injury in own car \u2014separate policy without UIM coverage \u2014UIM coverage under husband\u2019s policy\nThe wife of the owner-insured of an automobile policy is entitled as a Class I insured to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under the husband\u2019s policy when the wife was injured while riding in another car owned by her and insured by another carrier under a separate policy not containing UIM coverage.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance \u00a7 322.\nJustice MEYER dissenting.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, 104 N.C. App. 310, 409 S.E.2d 765 (1992), affirming the judgment entered by Allen (W. Steven), J., on 2 October 1990 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 September 1992.\nValentine, Adams, Lamar, Etheridge & Sykes, by Raymond M. Sykes, Jr., for defendant appellee.\nNichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Paul D. Coates and ToNola D. Brown, for plaintiff appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0477-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 507
}