Cargo flies, wreck results, claim rejected

Cargo flies, wreck results, claim rejected (access required)

Appeals court rules that falling cargo doesn’t trigger insurance coverage because vehicles didn’t touch

A Stanly County man who alleged he was injured after a tire fell from another moving vehicle and hit his truck, causing it overturn, cannot collect on his uninsured motorist coverage because the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that there was “no physical contact” between the two vehicles.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Real Property – Contract – Materialman’s Lien – Subsequent Purchaser – Mortgages – Unjust Enrichment (access required)

John Conner Construction, Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Co. Where the majority opinion in our Court of Appeals held, Where the plaintiff-contractors started working on the land at issue for defendant Grandfather Holding Co. before Grandfather Holding even entered into formal negotiations to buy the land, the contractors had no statutory right to file a claim of lien on the property, the ruling stands without precedential value

Criminal Practice – Search & Seizure – Defendant’s Residence — Protective Sweep – Weapon (access required)

State v. Dial Even if Deputy Burger’s testimony about prior arrests at defendant’s home only included one felony drug arrest, the trial court’s finding that Burger “had dealt with defendant on other occasions as well, including making felony drug arrests at the residence” was not prejudicial

Workers’ Compensation – Change of Condition – Insufficient Showing – Doctor’s Testimony (access required)

Wilhite v. Pike Electric, Inc. Although plaintiff’s doctor agreed with plaintiff’s counsel’s assertion that plaintiff was “100 percent” disabled, the doctor’s opinion on this point was not based solely upon plaintiff’s medical condition – which the doctor said was unchanged – or on the doctor’s medical expertise; rather, the doctor agreed with counsel’s assessment based on the doctor’s consideration of plaintiff’s “skill set and educational background.”