Clark v. New York Life Ins. Co., 5--4751
| Decision Date | 02 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4751,5--4751 |
| Citation | 434 S.W.2d 611,245 Ark. 763 |
| Parties | Myrtle Norris CLARK et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Dickey, Dickey & Drake, Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Coleman, Gantt, Ramsay & Cox, Pine Bluff, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Lawrence County Circuit Court wherein a motion for summary judgment for statutory penalty and attorneys' fees was denied by the court in a suit on a life insurance policy.
The appellants are the widow and children beneficiaries under a double indemnity benefit life insurance policy issued by the appellee on the life of the insured, Millard M. Clark. The insured died on March 19, 1967, from a pistol wound in the side of his head. Proof of loss form was filed on April 18, 1967, a homicide charge was filed against the widow on April 25, 1967, and on June 20, 1967, suit was filed for $10,000, the proceeds of the policy under its double indemnity provision for accidental death. Answer was filed on July 11, 1967, admitting the accidental death of the insured and on August 23, 1967, checks were issued and delivered to all the beneficiaries except the widow. On October 6, 1967, th widow's share was paid into the registry of the court.
The double indemnity provision of the policy for death by accidental means contains language as follows:
'Provided, however, that such Accidental Means Death Benefit shall not be payable if the insured's death resulted from * * * suicide, whether sane or insane; * * *'
Motion for summary judgment for statutory penalties, attorney's fees, interest and cost, was filed on October 11, 1967, and appellee resisted the motion on grounds that there had been no undue delay in the payment of the claims under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
The motion was submitted to the trial court upon stipulations and affidavits tending to prove on behalf of appellants that such evidence as the investigating officers had obtained had been made public and was available to the appellee, and that there was no evidence of suicide that would have voided the double indemnity provision of the policy. On behalf of the appellee the stipulations and affidavits tended to prove that appellee was handicapped in its investigation of the claims in that the prosecuting attorney, as well as the beneficiaries, especially the widow, refused to give it any information concerning the circumstances of the insured's death.
On April 12, 1968, appellants' motion for summary judgment was denied and the trial court entered judgment as follows:
'On this day this cause came on to be heard, the plaintiffs appearing by their attorneys Dickey & Dickey and the defendant appearing by its attorneys Coleman, Gantt, Ramsay & Cox. By consent of the parties this cause was submitted to the court for its consideration on a stipulation filed herein, the matters appearing in the motion for summary judgment and response to motion for summary judgment with affidavits in connection therewith, the pleadings and other matters of record. After reviewing the stipulation, having heard argument of counsel and considering all other facts, evidence and matters before the court, the court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that the plaintiffs declined to give to the defendant's representative information regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Millard M. Clark; that said information was necessary for the defendant to make a proper determination regarding the claims filed by the plaintiffs; that the defendant did not deny liability; and that the time which it took in making the necessary investigation was not unreasonable under the circumstances that existed.
It is, therefore, considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the prayer of the plaintiffs' complaint for statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest be and it is hereby denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. David
...insurance company to continue to investigate the loss even after payment is due under terms of the policy. See Clark v. New York Life Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 763, 434 S.W.2d 611 (1968). The argument does not prevail in this case because it was not reasonably necessary for the insurance company t......
-
McKee v. Federal Kemper Life Assur. Co., 89-2983
...See Clark Center, Inc. v. Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 563, 433 S.W.2d 151, 153 (1968); Clark v. New York Life Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 763, 434 S.W.2d 611, 613 (1968). Clark Center, Clark, and a related Eighth Circuit case, Clark v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 417 F.2d 683 (8th Cir.19......
-
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., s. 82-2285
...with respect to that policy. See Broadway v. Home Insurance Co., 203 Ark. 126, 155 S.W.2d 889 (1941); Clark v. New York Life Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 763, 434 S.W.2d 611, 613 (1968). Williams asserts that Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) mandates fees and costs resulting from Landers' denial of request for adm......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cumbie
...to investigate the loss even after payment is due under terms of the policy. This argument was based on Clark v. New York Life Insurance Co., 245 Ark. 763, 434 S.W.2d 611 (1968), where the supreme court held that the statutory language regarding an insurer's failure to pay losses within the......