Loading…
Opinion
354 N.C. 347 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2001
Full text
ROY E. BAGGETT and PATRICIA BAGGETT, Individually and d/b/a BOUTIQUE HOUSE-PORT OF SWANSBORO v. SUMMERLIN INSURANCE AND REALTY, INC., CHARLES W. SUMMERLIN, and CHARLES W. SUMMERLIN, JR., d/b/a SUMMERLIN INSURANCE CENTER and CHARLES W. SUMMERLIN, JR.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 2008
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2003
Third Circuit · Jun 4, 2003
Third Circuit · Jun 3, 2003
Parentheticals
noting that “Persons entering contracts ... have a duty to read them and ordinarily are charged with knowledge of their contents.”
“For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by ‘Judge Tyson, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.”
where a party has an opportunity to read an insurance policy under which he claims coverage, he is held to be on notice of those terms in the policy which are otherwise clear and unambiguous. Failure to read the policy will bar his right to reformation.
adopting the reasoning of the dissent
