Case Name: LEO BEASLEY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1971-12-15
Citations: 280 N.C. 177
Docket Number: No. 56
Parties: LEO BEASLEY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 280
Pages: 177–177

Head Matter:
LEO BEASLEY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
No. 56
(Filed 15 December 1971)
On certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review its decision reported in 11 N.C. App. 34, 180 S.E. 2d 381 (1971), reversing the judgment of Lee, District Court Judge, 26 August 1970 Session of District Court, Durham County.
At the trial the parties stipulated that this action presented questions of law only and that the facts essential to decision were not in dispute. Both parties moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and it was stipulated in writing that the court might render judgment based on an agreed statement of facts, which facts are fully set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. On these facts the District Court concluded that the policy issued by Hartford was written under the North Carolina Assigned Risk Plan and was an assigned risk policy within the meaning of G.S. 20-279.21(f) (1) and G.S. 20-279.34; that the policy was in force on 20 April 1969, and that Thomas Brunson, Jr., was an assigned risk insured under the policy issued by Hartford (No. 22AZ153249). The court then denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allowed defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals; and that court in a well-reasoned opinion by Judge Morris, concurred in by Judges Brock and Vaughn, reversed the judgment of the District Court.
Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, HedricJc & Murray, by E. C. Bryson, Jr., and K. Byron McCoy for defendant appellant.
C. Horton Poe, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We allowed certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, but after further consideration we feel that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct, and for the reasons set out in Judge Morris' opinion it should be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.