Cigna Ins. Co. v. Brisson
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-181,87-181 |
| Citation | 294 Ark. 504,744 S.W.2d 716 |
| Parties | CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carrie M. BRISSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Speed, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Elton A. Rieves IV, West Memphis, for appellant.
This medical malpractice case comes to us on a procedural issue. In December 1985, a wrongful death suit was filed by the administratrix of the estate of Frank Speed against the Helena Hospital. The complaint was amended in February 1986, to join the hospital's insurer, Cigna Insurance Company. On June 4, 1986, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the action against the hospital and finding that the claim against Cigna was barred by the statute of limitations.
On June 17, 1986, the administratrix moved that the court vacate or reconsider its June 4th order insofar as it related to Cigna. Shortly thereafter, counsel for Cigna and the administratrix contacted the trial judge and evidently agreed that the order should be modified and the court set a hearing on the matter for August 21, 1986. On that date counsel appeared and on motion of the administratrix, the hearing was rescheduled for September 15, 1986. At the September hearing, Cigna objected to any further proceedings, arguing that because ninety days had elapsed since the entry of the order of dismissal the court no longer had jurisdiction.
By letter dated October 25, 1986, the trial court wrote counsel that inasmuch as both parties had notified the court within thirty days of the June 4th order that the order should be amended, and that a hearing was scheduled originally within ninety days of that order, it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court announced that the June 4th order would be modified to dismiss the action as to the hospital but not as to Cigna. An order to that effect was entered on February 20, 1987.
Cigna appeals from this most recent order, contending only that the court was without jurisdiction to make any further orders after the lapse of ninety days from the order of June 4th, citing ARCP Rule 60(b) and ARAP Rule 4.
We cannot review this case on appeal because the order appealed from, the denial of a motion to dismiss, is not an appealable order. ARAP Rule 2. The denial of a motion to dismiss an action is not a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken. Epperson v. Biggs, 17 Ark.App. 212, 705 S.W.2d 901 (1986). For an order to be final, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Roberts Enterprises, Inc. v. Arkansas State Hwy. Commission, 277 Ark. 25, 638 S.W.2d 675 (1982). Neither party has raised this point, but the question of a final order is a jurisdictional requirement which the appellate court should raise on its own. Roy v. Int'l Multifoods Corp., 268 Ark. 958, 597 S.W.2d 129 (1980); Fratesi v. Bond, 282 Ark. 213, 666 S.W.2d 712 (1984); Arkansas Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Corning Savings & Loan Ass'n, 252 Ark. 264, 478 S.W.2d 431 (1972).
While the trial court's jurisdiction of the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pledger v. Bosnick, 90-39
...some appropriate manner. Estate of Hastings v. Planters and Stockmen Bank, 296 Ark. 409, 757 S.W.2d 546 (1988); Cigna Ins. Co. v. Brisson, 294 Ark. 504, 744 S.W.2d 716 (1988). The members of the class, in the court below, asked for relief common to the class, including a declaration that ce......
-
State v. Dawson
...within the ninety days, and the court's power to modify expires after the passage of the ninetieth day. See Cigna Ins. Co. v. Brisson, 294 Ark. 504, 744 S.W.2d 716 (1988); City of Little Rock v. Ragan, 297 Ark. 525, 763 S.W.2d 87 Exceptions to the ninety-day time limit are noted in Rule 60(......
-
Jordan v. Circuit Court of Lee County
...from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy." See also Ark. R.App. P.-Civ. 2; Cigna Ins. Co. v. Brisson, 294 Ark. 504, 744 S.W.2d 716 (1988) (holding that the purpose of Rule 2 is to avoid piecemeal litigation). Furthermore, we will not grant writs of cert......
-
Villines Iii et al v Harris
...ruling that it has proper jurisdiction does not render that order appealable, even if that ruling is erroneous. Signa Ins. v. Brisson, 294 Ark. 504, 744 S.W.2d 716 (1988). In such a case, this court retains the independent duty to raise the issue of our own jurisdiction because a final orde......