Watson v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 425 S.E.2d 696 (N.C. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Watson v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins., 425 S.E.2d 696 (N.C. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 · …if the plaintiff had rejected the automatic uim coverage, he could only have done so as stipulated in n.c.g.s. 20-279.21(b)(4) . ⚠ not in text
41 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vasseur v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance (ncctapp, 1996-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Vasseur v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
if the plaintiff had rejected the automatic uim coverage, he could only have done so as stipulated in n.c.g.s. 20-279.21(b)(4) .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nolan v. Cooke
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., 333 N.C. 340, 340 , 425 S.E.2d 696, 697 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Isenhour v. Universal Underwriters Insurance
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Stat. § 20-279.32 (1993), from the requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act, encompassing G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4), entitling the plaintiff to “only such coverage as is provided in the policy.” Watson, 333 N.C. 338, 340 , 425 S.E.2d 696, 697 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" Rice v. Rice
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Haywood v. Haywood, 106 N.C.App. 91, 100 , 415 S.E.2d 565, 571 (1992) ("[w]hen a party introduces evidence of a distributional factor under N.C.G.S. § 50-20(c), the trial court must consider the factor and make a finding of fact with regard to it"), rev'd in part on other grounds, 333 N.C. 342 , 425 S.E.2d 696 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Watson
v.
American National Fire Insurance Company
281PA92.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 12, 1993.
425 S.E.2d 696
Pritchett, Cooke & Burch, hy William W. Pritchett, Jr., Lars P. Simonsen and David J. Irvine, Jr., for plaintiff appellant. , Haywood, Denny, Miller, Johnson, Sessoms & Patrick, by George W. Miller, Jr. and Robert E. Levin, for defendant appellee.
Webb.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (2)
WEBB, Justice.

This case brings to the Court a question as to whether the plaintiff has underinsured motorist coverage for injuries received in an automobile accident. The plaintiff contends that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) provides that the policy he has with defendant gives him underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of his liability coverage because there is no showing that he rejected underinsured motorist coverage.

We hold that this case is governed by N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 which provides in part:

This Article . . . does not apply to any vehicle operated under a permit or certificate of convenience or necessity issued by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, or by the Interstate Commerce Commission, if public liability and property damage insurance for the protection of the public is required to be carried upon it.

[*340] It is undisputed that the vehicles insured by the defendant were operating under a certificate of convenience issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the plaintiff was required to have the liability coverage that he had in order to receive this certificate. N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4), under which the plaintiff contends he is given underinsured motorist coverage, is part of the same article as N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32. By its plain words N.C.G.S. § 20-279.32 says that N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4) does not apply in this case. The plaintiff has only such coverage as is provided in the policy.

The plaintiff, relying on Bray v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pa., 917 F.2d 130 (4th Cir. 1990), argues that the ICC regulations do not preempt state regulation of underinsured coverage. We agree. It is not the ICC regulations that preempt the plaintiff from underinsured motorist coverage. It is the statutes of this state which do not provide for underinsured motorist coverage in this case.

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.