Case Name: ROGER G. KNAPP v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1973-02-28
Citations: 17 N.C. App. 455
Docket Number: No. 7318DC143
Parties: ROGER G. KNAPP v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Judge Morris concurs.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 455–458

Head Matter:
ROGER G. KNAPP v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 7318DC143
(Filed 28 February 1973)
Insurance § 131— action on homeowner’s policy — dismissal because of arbitration award
Findings by the trial court were sufficient to support the court’s dismissal of an action to recover “additional living expense” under a homeowner’s insurance policy on the ground that arbitration to determine the amount of plaintiff’s loss had been conducted pursuant to the terms of the policy and that an arbitration award had been made to plaintiff.
Judge Hedrick dissenting.
Appeal by plaintiff from Kuykendall, District Judge, 24 July 1972 Session of District Court held in Guilford County.
Plaintiff seeks to recover “additional living expense” under a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by defendant.
There was no controversy as to the coverage, and the only question involved was the amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Plaintiff sought to recover the maximum limit of $2,400.00.
The loss occurred in May 1970. The complaint was filed 15 June 1971. The defendant filed an answer 30 July 1971, and among other things pleaded G.S. 58-176, together with the policy provision based thereon providing for a determination of loss by arbitration.
On 1 June 1972 the defendant filed a verified motion to dismiss the case for that while the case was pending a determination by arbitration' pursuant to the provisions of the policy and G.S. 58-176 had taken place. The defendant set forth in the motion to dismiss that the plaintiff had appointed an appraiser; the defendant likewise had appointed an appraiser. The two appraisers had appointed an umpire; and pursuant to the arbitration procedure, the loss had been determined to be $1,291.18, for which sum the defendant had sent the plaintiff a check which the plaintiff was still holding. A copy of the appraisal signed by the two appraisers and the umpire was attached to the motion.
Based upon this motion, the district court entered a judgment finding that the arbitration had been conducted and an award made; that no objections or exceptions had been made to any of the proceedings or findings of the arbitration board. The court further found that all of the allegations contained in the motion to dismiss were true based upon statements made by the plaintiff in open court. The trial judge thereupon dismissed the action as being moot.
The plaintiff appealed from this action of the trial court.
Donald K. SpecJchard for plaintiff appellant.
Perry C. Henson for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The record contains three assignments of error purporting to be based upon exceptions appearing in the record. There are no exceptions in the record. The only assignment of error meriting attention is the one to the order dismissing plaintiff's case and noting an appeal. This presents the record proper for review.
The record reveals that the findings made by the trial judge were adequate. The findings support the judgment, and no prejudicial error has been made to appear on the face of the record.
Affirmed.
Judge Morris concurs.
Judge Hedrick dissents.