N.C.P.I.—Civil 880.02

NOTE WELL: This instruction applies when an

insurance policy requires the continuing care of a

qualified physician as a condition of receiving benefits.

There is considerable variation among policies;

therefore, the issue must be framed according to the

specific policy involved in the controversy. The

following is based on the policy language in Duke v.

Mutual Life Ins. Co., 286 N.C. 244, 210 S.E.2d 187

(1974).)1

The (state number) issue reads:

"Is the plaintiff under the regular care and attendance of a licensed

physician?"

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 under the constant care of a licensed physician.

To recover for his disability, a person must be under the regular

care and attendance of a licensed physician. If his condition has

improved or stabilized such that further treatment would not be useful,

he cannot recover for his disability.2

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 under the regular care and attendance of a licensed

physician, 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.