Court Opinion

ID: 9568684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:06:32.437881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:55:41.489061
License: Public Domain

Justice Lake
dissenting.
The loss by fire occurred 7 June 1969. The policy issued by the defendant, in the form prescribed by G.S. 58-176, provides that no suit on the policy shall be sustainable in any court of law unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss. The former suit was instituted 7 April 1970. It was dismissed on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the person of the defendant due to defective service of process. In the judgment dismissing the former action for that reason, Judge Hall undertook to allow the plaintiff to commence a new action within thirty days from the date of his judgment, which was 15 October 1970. Within such thirty days, but more than a year after the loss by fire, the plaintiff brought the present action.
*582It is my view that Judge Hall could not, by his judgment, alter the terms of the contract between the parties so as to enlarge the time for the bringing of a suit on the policy, and certainly could not do so in a proceeding in which the court, over which he was presiding, had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The only thing which Judge Hall could do in that situation was to dismiss the action then before him. I, therefore, dissent from the majority opinion.