Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York v. NC Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 192 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York v. NC Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 192 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …the terms -8- 'prorate' and 'excess' do not have, and were not meant by the insurers to have identical meanings. ⚠ not in text
100 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cinoman v. Univ. of N.C. (ncctapp, 2014-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Cinoman v. Univ. of N.C. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the terms -8- 'prorate' and 'excess' do not have, and were not meant by the insurers to have identical meanings.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK
v.
N. C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 13, 1972.
192 S.E.2d 840
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (2)

Teague, Johnson, Patterson, Dilthey & Clay, for plaintiff.

Dees, Dees, Smith & Powell, for defendant Farm Bureau Mutual.

Petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 192 S.E.2d 113. Denied.