N.C.P.I.—Civil 880.00

NOTE WELL: The issue should be framed to conform

with the language in the particular insurance policy

involved in the lawsuit. There is considerable variation

among policies. This instruction is based on the policy

language in Greenwood v. Inter-Ocean Ins. Co., 242

N.C. 745, 89 S.E.2d 455 (1955).1

The (state number) issue reads:

"Is the plaintiff wholly and continuously disabled so that he is

unable to engage in any occupation or employment for wage or profit?"2

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that

he is unable to engage in any occupation or employment for wage or

profit.3

An insured, even though permanently disabled, is not wholly

disabled within the meaning of the disability clause in this insurance

policy if he is able to engage regularly in his usual occupation or in any

occupation for which he is physically and mentally qualified.4 The ability

to do odd jobs of comparatively trifling nature, however, does not

preclude recovery.5 But partial disability or disability to a limited degree

cannot be construed to mean continuous and total disability.6

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has

the burden of proof, if you find, by the greater weight of the evidence,

that the plaintiff is unable to engage in any occupation for wage or profit,

then it would be your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the

plaintiff. If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your

duty to answer this issue "No" in favor of the defendant.