 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manning v. Tripp12/3/1991
ut. Ins. Co., 103 N.C. App. 629, 406 S.E.2d 652, disc. rev. allowed, 330 N.C. 193, 412 S.E.2d 52 (1991) (Greene, J., dissenting) and in Harris v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 103 N.C. App. 101, 404 S.E.2d 499, disc. rev. allowed on additional issues, 329 N.C. 788, 408 S.E.2d 521 (1991) (Greene, J., dissenting), present two distinct issues. The first issue is "whether intrapolicy stacking is appropriately considered in determining if the tortfeasor's vehicle is underinsured." Harris, 103 N.C. App. at 103-04, 404 S.E.2d at 501. For the reasons stated in my dissents in Amos, 103 N.C. App. at 631-32, 406 S.E.2d at 653, and in Harris, 103 N.C. App. at 104-08, 404 S.E.2d at 501-03, I agree with the majority that the tortfeasor's vehicle is an underinsured vehicle.
The second issue is "whether intrapolicy stacking is permitted in determining an insurer's limit of liability when the injured party is a non-named insured." Harris, 103 N.C. App. at 104, 404 S.E.2d at 501. For the reasons stated in my dissents in Amos, 103 N.C. App. at 632, 406 S.E.2d at 653, and in Harris, 103 N.C. App. at 108-09, 404 S.E.2d at 503-04, I conclude that intrapolicy stacking is not permitted to determine the defendant's limit of liability where, as here, the injured party is a non-named insured. I would reverse the trial court's judgment.
|