Brooks v. Town & Country Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-176,87-176 |
| Citation | 741 S.W.2d 264,294 Ark. 173 |
| Parties | Eva BROOKS, Appellant, v. TOWN & COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Randall L. Gammill, Hazen, Wight, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for appellant.
Randall Templeton, Little Rock, for appellee.
Eva Brooks (appellant) insured her home in De Valls Bluff for $25,000 with Town & Country Mutual Insurance Company (appellee) against loss by fire. In May 1985 the dwelling was totally destroyed by fire. Town & Country denied the claim and Mrs. Brooks filed suit. Town & County pled affirmatively that the fire was intentionally set and that the dwelling had remained unoccupied for more than sixty days without the written permission of Town & County which terminated coverage under the policy.
The parties waived a jury and the issues were tried to the court, which found the proof insufficient to support either of the defenses pled by Town & Country. However, the court found a material misrepresentation of fact in that Mrs. Brooks had experienced an earlier fire which she failed to disclose when applying for coverage with Town & Country. On that basis judgment was entered for Town & Country.
Mrs. Brooks has appealed upon three points of error: 1) The court erred in finding for Town & Country on the basis of an affirmative defense that was not pled; 2) the court erred in not requiring proof that any misrepresentation of fact was intentional in order to defeat the claim; and 3) the court erred in finding a material misrepresentation of fact in the absence of any proof as to materiality. 1
We agree that Town & Country neither pled material misrepresentation of fact nor introduced evidence to sustain a finding of material misrepresentation and, accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues.
Rule 8(c), Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that affirmative defenses shall be expressly pled in response to a complaint. That material misrepresentation is an affirmative defense is not subject to doubt. American Family Life Assurance Company v. Reeves, 248 Ark. 1303, 455 S.W.2d 932 (1970); Continental Casualty Company v. Campbell, 242 Ark. 654, 414 S.W.2d 872 (1967); 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 1918. Town and Country does not contend otherwise, rather it urges that under ARCP Rule 15(b) issues not set forth in the pleadings may be raised by express or implied consent of the parties and thereby treated in all respects as though they had been pled. The flaw in that argument is that we find nothing in the record to suggest that the issue of material misrepresentation became an issue in trial by either the implied or the express consent of the parties. When Mrs. Brooks was asked on cross-examination about a prior loss by fire her counsel immediately argued that that was a collateral issue and objected to further questions along that line. The trial court overruled the objection and some additional inquiry occurred, but certainly it cannot be inferred that this evidence was introduced with the implied consent of the plaintiff.
Rule 15(b) also provides that such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence, and to raise these issues, may be made upon motion of any party at any time. However, we find no motion to amend throughout the trial or afterwards, and while the court has discretion in the allowance of motions to amend the pleadings, where the record reflects neither a motion to conform nor any basis for a determination that the evidence itself was impliedly acquiesced in, it seems clear that the judgment cannot rest upon an unpled affirmative defense.
Even if it could be said the issue of material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaton v. Slaton
...Co. v. Stabbs, 326 Ark. 239, 930 S.W.2d 345 (1996); Burge v. Pack, 301 Ark. 534, 785 S.W.2d 207 (1990); Brooks v. Town & Country Mutual Ins. Co., 294 Ark. 173, 741 S.W.2d 264 (1987). This argument must fail, as it did in Burge and Brooks, because there is nothing in the record to suggest th......
-
Hiscox Dedicated Corp. Member v. Taylor
...question regarding materiality would preclude granting Hiscox summary judgment on this ground for rescission of the Policy. See Brooks, 741 S.W.2d at 265 (noting that the insurer burden of proving materiality to justify rescission based upon a misrepresentation). C. Breach of Contract in th......
-
Patterson v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...pleading both the question appearing on the application and the plaintiff's answer to that question. In Brooks v. Town & Country Mutual Insurance Co., 294 Ark. 173, 741 S.W.2d 264 (1987), the plaintiff was the beneficiary of an insurance policy that covered the loss of her house in the even......
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth
...misrepresented facts, "the circumstances were such that it would not have issued the present coverage." Brooks v. Town & Country Mut. Ins. Co. , 294 Ark. 173, 741 S.W.2d 264, 265 (1987). Notably, "[t]he materiality to the risk of a fact misrepresented, omitted or concealed is a question of ......