McCabe v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Currie v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NC (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
- Corali Lopez Castro v. Atlantic Southern Insurance Company (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2003)
- Walker v. Durham Life Insurance (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
- Durham v. Cox (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Hooks v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
- Fli-Back Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and Affiliated Fm Insurance Company (4th Cir. 1974)
- Wall v. Diamond State Life Insurance (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)
- American Home Mutual Life Insurance v. Harvey (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
- Wright v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY (N.C. 1956)
- Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. (N.C. 1955)
- Pothier v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. (4th Cir. 1951)
- Suggs v. . Braxton (N.C. 1946)
- Lumber Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Wells (N.C. 1946)
- Allen v. National Accident & Health Insurance (N.C. 1939)
- Gorham v. . Insurance Co. (N.C. 1938)
- Gorham v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (N.C. 1938)
- Mills v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (N.C. 1936)
- López Castro v. Atlantic Southern Insurance (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2003)
- Bynum v. North Carolina Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Without going into the “mix-up,” as indicated by the third issue, whereby the insured was confused with his 36-year-old son in the application, suffice it to say the policy in suit contains the following provision:
“20. Age Limits of Policy: The insurance under this policy shall not cover any person under the age of 18 years nor over the age of 65 years. Any premium paid to the company for any period not covered by this policy will be returned upon request.”
With this provision in the face of the policy, plaintiff’s recovery is limited to a return of the premiums paid while the insured was over the age of 65 years. Reinhardt v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 785, 161 S. E., 528; Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 632, 155 S. E., 566.
The fifth issue undertakes to find that the defendant had waived paragraph 20 of its policy, but the suit is upon the policy as written. Burton v. Ins. Co., 198 N. C., 498, 152 S. E., 396. The stipulation in question is not a condition working a forfeiture, which may be waived, Mahler v. Ins. Co., 205 N. C., 692, 172 S. E., 204; Horton v. Ins. Co., 122 N. C., 498, 29 S. E., 944, but a limitation upon liability. Foscue v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 139, 144 S. E., 689; Lexington v. Indemnity Co., 207 N. C., 774, 178 S. E., 547; Spruill v. Ins. Co., 120 N. C., 141, 27 S. E., 39. Its purpose was to protect the defendant against the heedlessness of youth and the debility of age. McCain v. Ins. Co., 190 N. C., 549, 130 S. E., 186; Moore v. Cas. Co., 207 N. C., 433, 177 S. E., 406. Comnpare Walls v. Assurance Corp., 206 N. C., 903, 173 S. E., 23; Welch v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 546, 146 S. E., 216.
New trial.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.