Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Simpson
Decision Date | 28 October 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 5-1305,5-1305 |
Citation | 306 S.W.2d 117,228 Ark. 157 |
Parties | The AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., Appellant, v. Mary SIMPSON et al., Appellees. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Armstrong, McCadden, Allen, Braden & Goodman, Memphis, Tenn., Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, Mehaffy, Smith & Williams, and John T. Williams and Robert V. Light, Little Rock, for appellant.
Rieves & Smith and Henry S. Wilson, West Memphis, for appellees.
Pope, Pratt & Shamburger, Little Rock, amici curiae.
The appellees, Mary Simpson, Dorothy Lagos, and Gary Lagos, a minor, by his next friend, Dorothy Lagos, obtained small judgments against James E. Knight, Jr., for damages sustained by appellees when involved in an automobile collision. An automobile occupied by appellees had collided with an automobile owned by James E. Knight, Jr. and operated by James E. Knight, Sr. The judgments against James E. Knight, Jr. were not satisfied, and in an attempt to enforce the judgments, appellees filed this suit against the appellant herein, The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the carrier of James E. Knight, Jr.'s liability insurance. The appellant insurance company filed an answer alleging:
'Defendant for further answer avers that its insurance policy referred to in the complaint and exhibited thereto provides under the heading 'Conditions', as follows:
'Therefore, defendant avers that James E. Knight, Jr. and James E. Knight, Sr. breached the conditions of said policy, as above set out, and that defendant was greatly prejudiced thereby, and that under the terms and provisions of said policy the defendant was not obligated to pay any judgments rendered against either James E. Knight, Jr. or James E. Knight, Sr., and, therefore, defendant is not liable to the plaintiffs in this cause.'
The appellees, plaintiffs in circuit court, demurred to the answer. The trial court sustained the demurrer. The appellant, defendant in circuit court, stood on the answer and refused to plead further. Whereupon, the court entered judgments for the plaintiffs. The defendant insurance company has appealed.
It is appellant's contention that the answer states a valid defense; that neither the statutes nor the policy of insurance makes the insurance company liable as a matter of law when the facts alleged in the answer are assumed to be true, as they must be in testing the demurrer.
Act No. 347 of the 1953 Acts of the General Assembly is the 'Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act'. It appears in Arkansas Statutes as §§ 75-1401 to 75-1493, inclusive. Appellees rely on Section 75-1466, which is paragraph (f)(1) of Section 66 of the Act. It provides:
'The liability of the insurance carrier with respect to the insurance required by this act [our italics] [§ 75-1401--s 75-1493] shall become absolute whenever injury or damage covered by said motor-vehicle liability [policy] occurs; said policy may not be cancelled or annulled as to such liability by any agreement between the insurance carrier and the insured after the occurrence of the injury or damage; no statement made by the insured or on his behalf and no violation of said policy shall defeat or void said policy.'
Appellees also rely on Item 5 of the policy. It provides [Our italics.]
The appellees maintain that the statute when considered in connection with the provisions of the policy precludes the insurance company from asserting a defense of non-cooperation on the part of the insured.
There is no Arkansas statute which required Knight, the insured, to carry insurance prior to the collision. The Arkansas financial responsibility law is applicable only after a mishap had occurred. It is then that an automobile owner or operator must establish his financial responsibility. The Financial Responsibility Act is rather long, containing 95 sections, but it is clear that the Act does not apply to an owner or driver who has not been involved in an accident for which he may be liable in damages.
Section 24 of the Act provides:
'The provisions of this act, requiring deposit of security and suspensions for failure to deposit security, subject to certain exemptions, shall apply to the driver and owner of any vehicle of a type subject to registration under the motor-vehicle laws of this State which is in any manner involved in an accident within this State, which accident has resulted in bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to the property of any one person in excess of $100.'
Section 63 is as follows:
If a person becomes subject to the provisions of the Act as provided by Section 43, on accout of his failure to satisfy a judgment, as in the case at bar, then he must furnish proof of 'financial responsibility'. One method of doing this is set out in Section 63 of the Act. It provides for filing with the Department of Revenues a written certificate of an insurance carrier certifying that there is a policy of insurance in effect for the benefit of the person required to furnish proof of financial responsibility.
Section 66, par. (a) of the Act provides:
"Motor-vehicle liability policy' defined.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods Masonry, Inc. v. Monumental General Cas., C01-4045-MWB.
...that "[t]he question is essentially a procedural one, to be governed by the law of the forum.") (citing Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Simpson, 228 Ark. 157, 306 S.W.2d 117 (1957)). Even though the Arkansas Supreme Court's statements with respect to the procedural nature of the Arkansas statute......
-
Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bakke
...vast majority of cases support this view. Mooradian v. Canal Ins. Co., 272 Ala. 373, 130 So.2d 915 (1961); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Simpson, 228 Ark. 157, 306 S.W.2d 117 (1957); American Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Parviz, 153 Colo. 490, 386 P.2d 982 (1963); Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co.......
-
Ferrell v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co.
...the State. Id.; New Empire Life Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 241 Ark. 1051, 411 S.W.2d 863, 864-65 (1967); see also Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Simpson, 228 Ark. 157, 306 S.W.2d 117, 123 (1957) (fee statute applied where policy matured in Arkansas and lawsuit initiated in We conclude that there was su......
-
Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salzberg
...applies to those policies certified thereunder. The majority of states passing on the issue have so held. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Simpson, 228 Ark. 157, 306 S.W.2d 117 (1957); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 312 Ky. 527, 228 S.W.2d 421 (1949); Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Saccio, ......