NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-3-10 (2026)

Statements in application not warranties

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 58 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All statements or descriptions in any application for a policy of insurance, or in the policy itself, shall be deemed representations and not warranties, and a representation, unless material or fraudulent, will not prevent a recovery on the policy.  (1901, c. 705, s. 2; Rev., s. 4808; C.S., s. 6289.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: In re the Appeal by McCrary, 435 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
In re the Appeal by McCrary, 435 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 18× “In arguing the Commissioner’s decision was contrary to law, petitioner advances a single argument; she maintains the Commissioner did not properly interpret the term “fraudulent” as contained in N.C.G.S. § 58-3-10 (1991). Incorrect statutory interpretation by an agency…”
Oxendine v. TWL, INC., 645 S.E.2d 864 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “On appeal, Canal argues that TWL made material misrepresentations in its application to Canal for insurance, and that those material misrepresentations prevent recovery under the insurance contract under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-3-10 and related case law.”
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Dillard, 487 S.E.2d 157 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-3-10 (1994). Absent fraud, a misrepresentation of a material fact, or the suppression thereof, in an application for insurance, will avoid the policy “even though the assured be innocent of fraud or an intention to deceive or to wrongfully induce the…”
Luther v. Seawell, 662 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-3-10 (2007) (“[a]ll statements or descriptions in any application for a policy of insurance .”
Odum v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 401 S.E.2d 87 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “First, Nationwide argues that G.S. § 58-3-10 applies to the automobile liability policy at issue and thus a material misrepresentation on an application form constitutes a defense to recovery under the policy.”
Crawford v. Com. Union Midwest Ins., 556 S.E.2d 30 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 34× “Instead, Defendant contends section 58-3-10 controls with respect to any material misrepresentations made in an application for fire/homeowners insurance.”
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Corder, 15 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 33-24-7; N.C.Gen.Stat. § 58-3-10; however, two of *388 those jurisdictions, Arizona and North Carolina, also have so-called "frozen liability" statutes, which provide as follows: The liability of the insurance carrier with respect to the insurance required by this chapter…”
Tharrington v. Sturdivant Life Ins. Co., 443 S.E.2d 797 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “G.S. § 58-3-10 states: All statements or descriptions in any application for a policy of insurance, or in the policy itself, shall be deemed representations and not warranties, and a representation, unless material or fraudulent, will not prevent a recovery on the policy.”
Evanston Ins. v. G & T Fabricators, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D.N.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “Allied also argues that Evanston is estopped from denying coverage due its own negligence for failing to comply by the Surplus Lines Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 58-21-1 et seq.”
Laschkewitsch v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Distributors, Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 327 (E.D.N.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “2d 1, 4 (2008) (citing N.C. Gen.Stat. § 58-3-10). “[A] representation in an application for an insurance policy is deemed material if the knowledge or ignorance of it would naturally influence the judgment of the insurer in making the contract.”
James v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 744 S.E.2d 491 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-3-10 (2011) (emphasis added) (“All statements or descriptions in any application for a policy of insurance, or in the policy itself, shall be deemed representations and not warranties, and a representation, unless material or fraudulent, will not prevent…”
Connecticut Indem. Co. v. Carrier Haulers, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 564 (W.D.N.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “Connecticut alleges “no coverage” on two theories: 1) that recovery is precluded under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 58-3-10 because Carrier made material misrepresentations on its insurance application, specifically, not informing Connecticut of an earlier “lost” shipment of cigarettes,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.