
    EFEIE DAILEY v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    (Filed 20 November, 1935.)
    1. Trial H b—
    Where, upon trial by tbe court under agreement of tbe parties, tbe court fully and completely sets out tbe facts found by bim and renders judgment tbereon, an exception tbat tbe court did not state bis findings of fact and conclusions of law separately as required by C. S., 569, cannot be sustained, since tbe judgment constitutes tbe court’s conclusion of law on tbe facts found.
    2. Insurance E b—
    Tbe provisions of a policy of life insurance limiting insurer’s liability to a percentage of tbe face amount of tbe policy in case of disability or death resulting from rioting, fighting, resisting arrest, etc., are valid.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Williams, J., at June Term, 1935, of WaKE.
    Action upon an insurance policy on tbe life of 'Wilbert Carson.
    Tbe policy contained tbe following provisions:
    “(8) Death and/or disability due partly to accidental injury and partly to disease or bodily infirmity or to blood poison shall be classed as an illness and covered only under tbe health insurance and natural death clause provisions hereof, tbe original or exciting cause thereof notwithstanding.”
    “(10) In tbe event tbe insured, while this policy is in force, suffers death, disability, or other loss due directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, to any of tbe following: Evading arrest; injuries intentionally inflicted upon bim by any person other than himself for any reason whatsoever, whether or not caused by an act of tbe insured; rioting; fighting; or strikes, whether or not tbe insured is engaged in same; then in all such cases tbe liability of tbe company shall be limited to 10 per cent of the amount otherwise payable under tbe provisions of this policy.”
    A jury trial was waived and it was agreed tbat tbe judge should bear tbe evidence, find tbe facts, and render judgment tbereon. From judgment awarding plaintiff less than her claim, she appealed.
    
      
      D. Staton Inscoe for plaintiff.
    
    
      A. W. Crawley and W. H. Yarborough, Jr., for defendant.
    
   Pee Cubiam.

Plaintiff's appeal presents two questions:

(1) Did the judge's decision contain a statement of facts found and the conclusions of law separately, as required by C. S., 569 ?

(2) Are the provisions in the policy limiting defendant’s liability valid ?

Both of these questions must be answered against the plaintiff. In his judgment Judge Williams set out the facts which he found, fully and in detail, and rendered judgment thereon constituting his conclusion of law. Eley v. R. R., 165 N. C., 78. Provisions in policies limiting liability have been upheld in Epps v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 695, and in Reinhardt v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 785, and cases cited.

The judgment is

Affirmed.  