Court Opinion

ID: 9847495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:00:48.608305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:17.588324
License: Public Domain

Justice Branch
concurring in result.
I agree with the conclusion of the majority that plaintiff’s policy did not provide coverage for the personal injuries and property damages caused-by Massey’s operation of the leased automobile. However, I think the sole basis for this conclusion should be that the vehicle was being operated without the insured’s permission.
G. S. 20-279.21 applies to motor vehicles generally and defines a “motor vehicle liability policy.” Referring to such policy, the statute in part provides that it “Shall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured, or any other persons in lawful possession, against loss . . .” G.S. 20-279.21 is found in Article 9A.
G.S. 20-281 is a statute found in Article 11 which specifically applies to persons engaged in the renting of automobiles. It requires that “Each such motor vehicle leased or rented must be covered by a policy of liability insurance insuring the owner and rentee or lessee and their agents and employees while in the performance of their duties against loss . .
One of the recognized rules of statutory construction is that “Where one statute deals with the subject matter in detail with reference to a particular situation and another statute *316deals with, the same subject matter in general and comprehensive terms, the particular statute will be construed as controlling in the particular situation unless it clearly appears that the General Assembly intended to make the general act controlling in regard thereto, especially when the particular statute is later enacted.” 7 Strong’s N. C. Index 2d Statutes § 5; Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E. 2d 582.
It should be noted that G.S. 20-281 does not include as an insured “any other persons in lawful possession.”
Plaintiff’s policy, in excess of the statutory requirements of G.S. 20-281, defined an insured to include the named insured and any person using the automobile or legally responsible for the use, provided that the use of the automobile be with the permission of the named insured.
I am of the opinion that only G.S. 20-281 is applicable to the facts of this case and that it was not necessary or proper that we consider whether Massey was in “lawful possession” at the time of the collision.