## Facts

- Iowa Mutual issued Spauldin Allison an automobile policy providing “comprehensive” coverage for loss “from any cause except collision.”
- The policy defined “collision” as (i) collision of a covered automobile with another object or with a vehicle to which it is attached, or (ii) upset of the covered automobile.
- The comprehensive provision also listed certain perils (e.g., falling objects, water, flood) that would not be deemed “loss caused by collision” for purposes of comprehensive coverage.
- Allison’s covered vehicle was a dump truck.
- While transporting gravel, the dump truck was driven onto a bridge that collapsed, causing the truck to slide into a river and come to rest on its side, sustaining substantial damage.
- Allison claimed roughly $8,500 in repair costs.
- Iowa Mutual paid only a small amount for windshield damage, asserting the loss resulted from a “collision” and that Allison had not purchased collision coverage.

## Issues

1. Whether damage resulting from a bridge collapse that caused an insured truck to fall into a river was a “collision” (or “upset”) under the policy’s collision definition, thereby excluding the loss from comprehensive coverage.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Allison.
- The court held the bridge collapse and resulting damage did not constitute a “collision” within the policy’s meaning and therefore was covered under comprehensive coverage.
- Discretionary review was denied by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance policies are construed to effect the parties’ intent as expressed in the contract language.
- When a policy expressly defines a term, the policy definition governs its interpretation.
- Nontechnical words not defined are given their ordinary meaning unless context requires otherwise.
- The dispute may turn on whether an event is excluded from an otherwise applicable grant of coverage, not whether the vehicle is generally covered.
- Exclusions are construed narrowly, and ambiguity concerning exclusionary language is resolved against the insurer and in favor of coverage.

## Conclusion

Because the policy’s collision exclusion did not clearly encompass a bridge’s structural collapse and the resulting fall, the loss was not treated as a “collision” under the policy, and comprehensive coverage applied.


Allison v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 43 N.C. App. 200, 258 S.E.2d 489 (1979)