9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co.green2 sentences1995It is well-settled in North Carolina that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may be applied to obviate forfeiture provisions in insur- *373 anee contracts; however, waiver and estoppel “are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom.” Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593, 595 , 86 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1955); Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. 1995It is well-settled in North Carolina that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may be applied to obviate forfeiture provisions in insur- *373 anee contracts; however, waiver and estoppel “are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom.” Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593, 595 , 86 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1955); Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. | 4 | 5 |
Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co.green2 sentences2008Co., 316 N.C. 461, 466 , 343 S.E.2d 174, 177 (1986) (noting “the well-settled rule that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel have been applied in order to obviate the forfeiture provisions in insurance contracts, but that they are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Brendle v. Shenandoah Life Ins. 2008Co., 316 N.C. 461, 466 , 343 S.E.2d 174, 177 (1986) (noting “the well-settled rule that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel have been applied in order to obviate the forfeiture provisions in insurance contracts, but that they are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Brendle v. Shenandoah Life Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Hannah v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Because the provisions of a value reporting policy create conditions of coverage, rather than forfeiture, and because pursuant to North Carolina law the doctrines of waiver and estoppel “ ‘are not available to broaden the coverage of a policy so as to protect the insured against risks not included therein or expressly excluded’ ” from coverage, Hannah, 190 N.C. 2010App. at 631 , 660 S.E.2d at 604 (citation omitted), we now hold that an insurer’s acceptance of reports or premium payments following an insured’s failure to comply with the reporting provisions, specified as conditions of coverage, does not constitute a waiver of the condition. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2026Ultimately, this Court held the doctrines did not bar the plaintiff’s second suit, because, among other reasons, the Court did “not subscribe to the proposition that joinder of a non-accrued indemnification claim was mandatory.” Id. at 472 , 456 S.E.2d at 131 . 2026Ultimately, this Court held the doctrines did not bar the plaintiff’s second suit, because, among other reasons, the Court did “not subscribe to the proposition that joinder of a non-accrued indemnification claim was mandatory.” Id. at 472 , 456 S.E.2d at 131 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brendle v. Shenandoah Life Insurance
green
1 sentence2008Co., 76 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Durham v. Cox
green
1 sentence1995Co., 316 N.C. 461, 466 , 343 S.E.2d 174, 177 (1986); Durham v. Cox, 65 N.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Keistler Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1995Relying on this explanation of the difference between an “accepted” risk and an “excepted” risk, this Court determined that a provision of a homeowner’s policy under coverage on appurtenant structures which stated “[t]his coverage excludes structures used in whole or part for business purposes,” “is analogous to the provision against storage of inflammable materials in the foregoing illustration in that both may be said to enhance a risk already assumed by the insurer.” Id. “[A] ‘business use’ of the covered property may properly be considered as a condition subsequent, the occurrence of which 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pearce v. American Defender Life Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1986Because "application of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel on these facts would essentially rewrite the policy, extending coverage to a risk expressly excluded therefrom, and obligating defendant to pay a loss for which it charged no premium," the Court of Appeals concluded that neither doctrine was available to Mrs. Pearce as a basis for relief. 74 N.C.App. at 626-27 , 330 S.E.2d at 13 . 1986Because "application of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel on these facts would essentially rewrite the policy, extending coverage to a risk expressly excluded therefrom, and obligating defendant to pay a loss for which it charged no premium," the Court of Appeals concluded that neither doctrine was available to Mrs. Pearce as a basis for relief. 74 N.C.App. at 626-27 , 330 S.E.2d at 13 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McCabe v. Maryland Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1984Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593 , 86 S.E. 2d 78 (1955); McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577 , 183 S.E. 743 (1936); Currie v. Insurance Co., 17 N.C. 1984Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593 , 86 S.E. 2d 78 (1955); McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577 , 183 S.E. 743 (1936); Currie v. Insurance Co., 17 N.C. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Currie v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NC
green
1 sentence1984Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593 , 86 S.E. 2d 78 (1955); McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577 , 183 S.E. 743 (1936); Currie v. Insurance Co., 17 N.C. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Pierce v. Homesteaders Life Ass'n
green
2 sentences1973Pierce v. Homesteaders Assn., 223 Iowa 211 , 272 N.W. 543 ; Prudential Ins. 1973Pierce v. Homesteaders Assn., 223 Iowa 211 , 272 N.W. 543 ; Prudential Ins. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.