N.C.P.I.—Civil 880.01

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.1

The (state number) issue reads:

"Is the plaintiff continuously confined within doors?"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 continuously confined within doors.

The provision that the insured be continuously confined within

doors by sickness or disease describes the extent of the illness rather

than the insured's conduct or activities. Thus, an insured claiming

continuous confinement may reasonably deviate from the indoors

requirement. For example, an insured would still be continuously

confined within doors although he took walks ordered by his physician or

made visits to his physician. So long as the insured's activities away

from home are not so extensive and regular that they contradict the

seriousness of his illness or the totality of his disability, he would be

continuously confined.3

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 continuously confined within doors, 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.