Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Rochester American Insurance Co.green2 sentences1966This Court has held binding and enforceable provisions requiring that an insured give notice of an accident, Muncie v. Insurance Co., supra, and Woodruff v. Insurance Co., supra, and requiring the insured’s cooperation in defense of any action against him, Henderson v. Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 329 , 118 S.E. 2d 885 . 1966This Court has held binding and enforceable provisions requiring that an insured give notice of an accident, Muncie v. Insurance Co., supra, and Woodruff v. Insurance Co., supra, and requiring the insured’s cooperation in defense of any action against him, Henderson v. Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 329 , 118 S.E. 2d 885 . | 1 | 3 |
Continental Casualty Company v. William S. Burton, Audrey H. Buckner, Mary R. Thweattgreen2 sentences2012Interpreting Virginia law, the court explained that, "to establish that the insured has breached a cooperation clause by being unavailable, the insurer must prove that the insured willfully breached the clause in a material or essential particular and that the insurer made a reasonable effort to secure the insured's cooperation." 795 F.2d 1187, 1193-94 (4th Cir.1986). 2012Interpreting Virginia law, the court explained that, “to establish that the insured has breached a cooperation clause by being unavailable, the insurer must prove that the insured willfully breached the clause in a material or essential particular and that the insurer made a reasonable effort to secure the insured’s cooperation.” 795 F.2d 1187, 1193-94 (4th Cir. 1986). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lockwood v. Porter
green
2 sentences2012The action was dismissed by motion of summary judgment, and we affirmed on appeal, explaining that the insured's "unjustified refusal to be so examined violated the cooperation clause of the policy and bar[red] his action as a matter of law." Id. at 411 , 390 S.E.2d at 743-44 . 2012The action was dismissed by motion of summary judgment, and we affirmed on appeal, explaining that the insured's "unjustified refusal to be so examined violated the cooperation clause of the policy and bar[red] his action as a matter of law." Id. at 411 , 390 S.E.2d at 743-44 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Orozco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1990Orozco v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 360 F.Supp. 223 (S.D. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McDowell v. J. S. Kent Co.
neutral
2 sentences1966As Chief Justice Clark said in McDowell v. Kent, 153 N.C. 555, 558 , 69 S.E. 626, 627 , and as Stacy, C.J., repeated in Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811, 812 , 164 S.E. 342 , 343: “What the Court desires, and indeed the least that any appellate court requires, is that the exceptions which are bona *270 fide be presented to the Court for a decision, as the points determinative of the appeal, shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of errors and not by referring to the record, and therewith shall be set out so much of the evidence or of the charge or other matter or circumstanc 1966As Chief Justice Clark said in McDowell v. Kent, 153 N.C. 555, 558 , 69 S.E. 626, 627 , and as Stacy, C.J., repeated in Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811, 812 , 164 S.E. 342 , 343: “What the Court desires, and indeed the least that any appellate court requires, is that the exceptions which are bona *270 fide be presented to the Court for a decision, as the points determinative of the appeal, shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of errors and not by referring to the record, and therewith shall be set out so much of the evidence or of the charge or other matter or circumstanc | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Greene v. . Dishman
neutral
2 sentences1966As Chief Justice Clark said in McDowell v. Kent, 153 N.C. 555, 558 , 69 S.E. 626, 627 , and as Stacy, C.J., repeated in Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811, 812 , 164 S.E. 342 , 343: “What the Court desires, and indeed the least that any appellate court requires, is that the exceptions which are bona *270 fide be presented to the Court for a decision, as the points determinative of the appeal, shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of errors and not by referring to the record, and therewith shall be set out so much of the evidence or of the charge or other matter or circumstanc 1966As Chief Justice Clark said in McDowell v. Kent, 153 N.C. 555, 558 , 69 S.E. 626, 627 , and as Stacy, C.J., repeated in Greene v. Dishman, 202 N.C. 811, 812 , 164 S.E. 342 , 343: “What the Court desires, and indeed the least that any appellate court requires, is that the exceptions which are bona *270 fide be presented to the Court for a decision, as the points determinative of the appeal, shall be stated clearly and intelligibly by the assignment of errors and not by referring to the record, and therewith shall be set out so much of the evidence or of the charge or other matter or circumstanc | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Haas
green
2 sentences1961It said: “. . .(U)nder the overwhelming weight of authority, including that of the courts of Texas, it is the law that it is essential to proof of breach of the cooperation clause, that actual, not merely suppositious or theoretical prejudice to the insurer therefrom be shown . . .” These statements of the law find support in Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Haas, 179 F 2d 827 ; Juvland v. Plaisance, 96 N.W. 2d 537 ; General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. 1961It said: "* * * (U)nder the overwhelming weight of authority, including that of the courts of Texas, it is the law that it is essential to proof of breach of the cooperation clause, that actual, not merely suppositious or theoretical prejudice to the insurer therefrom be shown * * *" These statements of the law find support in Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Haas, 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 827 ; Juvland v. Plaisance, 255 Minn. 262 , 96 N.W.2d 537 ; General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Rinnert
green
2 sentences1961Corp. v. Rinnert, 170 F 2d 440 ; Rowoldt v. Cook County Farmers Mut. 1961Corp. v. Rinnert, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 440 ; Rowoldt, for Use of Flanagan v. Cook County Farmers Mut. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Juvland v. Plaisance
green
2 sentences1961It said: "* * * (U)nder the overwhelming weight of authority, including that of the courts of Texas, it is the law that it is essential to proof of breach of the cooperation clause, that actual, not merely suppositious or theoretical prejudice to the insurer therefrom be shown * * *" These statements of the law find support in Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Haas, 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 827 ; Juvland v. Plaisance, 255 Minn. 262 , 96 N.W.2d 537 ; General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. 1961It said: "* * * (U)nder the overwhelming weight of authority, including that of the courts of Texas, it is the law that it is essential to proof of breach of the cooperation clause, that actual, not merely suppositious or theoretical prejudice to the insurer therefrom be shown * * *" These statements of the law find support in Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. Haas, 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 827 ; Juvland v. Plaisance, 255 Minn. 262 , 96 N.W.2d 537 ; General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.