Preview:

NO. COA97-89
                                                                                             NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                       6 January 1998
SHEILA BANNER HANEY (GOLDEN), Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY TAIT MILLER, INTEGON INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
Appeal by defendant Integon Insurance Company from order dated 7 August 1995 by Judge
James U. Downs in Avery County Superior Court.   Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November
1997.
No brief for plaintiff appellee.
Willardson Lipscomb & Beal, L.L.P., by William F. Lipscomb, for defendant appellant
Integon Insurance Company.
GREENE, Judge.
Integon Insurance Company  (Integon) appeals from an order of
the trial court granting Sheila Banner Haney's (Golden) (plaintiff)
motion for summary judgment.
The  facts  are  as  follows:    In  May  of  1993  Anthony  T.  Miller
(defendant) was the named insured in an automobile insurance policy
issued by Integon that covered his 1985 Honda automobile.   On 1 May
1993,  the  defendant,  while  driving  a                                                    1983  Porsche  automobile
(Porsche)  owned  by  his  father,  Dr.  John  Joseph  Miller,  Jr.  (Dr.
Miller) was involved in an automobile accident with the plaintiff.
The  defendant  testified  at  a  deposition  that  he  did  not  have
permission   to   drive   the   Porsche   and   had   been   specifically
instructed by Dr. Miller never to drive the Porsche.   The plaintiff




-2-
filed a declaratory judgment action on 15 February 1995 seeking to
establish that the defendant's automobile insurance policy issued
by Integon provided liability coverage for his use of Dr. Miller's
Porsche.    The automobile insurance policy issued to the defendant
excluded  liability  coverage  for  "any  person"  who  used  "a  vehicle
without a reasonable belief that that person is entitled to do so."
Entering  an  order  on  7  August  1995,  the  trial  court  allowed  the
plaintiff's  motion  for  summary  judgment  and  declared  that  the
defendant's  automobile  insurance  policy  issued  by  Integon  did
provide liability coverage for the defendant's use of Dr. Miller's
Porsche.    Integon  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  from  this  order  on  1
September 1995 and this Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to an
opinion filed  5 November  1996, because the plaintiff's negligence
action against the defendant and Dr. Miller had not been resolved
and the amount of the plaintiff's damages was undetermined.   On 16
December  1996 a consent judgment entered in the negligence action
established  that  the  plaintiff  was  injured  and  her  property  was
damaged  because  of  the  defendant's  negligence  and  that  she  was
entitled to  $10,000 from the defendant.
The  dispositive  issue  is  whether  an  automobile  insurance
policy exclusion, which excludes liability coverage for any person
who  uses  an  automobile  without  a  reasonable  belief  that  he  has  a
right to use it, applies to the named insured.
Insurance  policies  are  contracts  and  the  provisions  of  the
policies govern the rights and duties of the parties.   Deason v. J.




-3-
King  Harrison  Co.,                                                          127  N.C.  App.   ---,   ---,   491  S.E.2d   666,   668
(1997).   Exclusions from coverage must be strictly construed.   Id.
In  this  case,  the  insurance  policy  in  question  provides  that
liability coverage is not extended to "any person  .  .  .  [u]sing a
vehicle without a reasonable belief that that person is entitled to
do so."   The words "any person" are not ambiguous and have no other
defined  meaning  within  the  policy  itself  and  therefore  must  be
given  their  plain  meaning.    Our  Supreme  Court  construing  similar
policy language held that the words "any person" "encompasses any
person, whether that person is the named insured, a family member
or  a  third  party,  unless  express  exceptions  in  the  policy  .  .  .
provide otherwise."    Newell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,  334 N.C.
391,  401,  432 S.E.2d  284,  290  (1993).
In  this  case  there  is  no  dispute  that  the  defendant  did  not
have a reasonable belief that he was entitled to use the Porsche.
In  fact,  he  had  been  specifically  instructed  never  to  drive  the
Porsche.     As  a  result,  the  Integon  policy  does  not  provide
liability  coverage  to  the  defendant's  operation  of  his  father's
Porsche, even though he was the named insured in that policy.
Accordingly, the summary judgment entered for the plaintiff is
reversed and this case is remanded to the superior court for entry
of summary judgment for Integon.
Reversed and remanded.
Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge MCGEE concur.

Download 97-89-7.pdf

South Carolina Law