Crail v. Northwestern Nat. Ins., Co., 83-271
| Decision Date | 09 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-271,83-271 |
| Citation | 666 S.W.2d 706,282 Ark. 175 |
| Parties | Harold J. CRAIL and Darlene Crail, Appellants, v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE, CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Jonathan P. Shermer, Jr., Russellville, for appellants.
Laser, Sharp & Huckabay, P.A., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellants, Harold and Darlene Crail, had been injured in an automobile accident and were paid $8,188.44 pursuant to the no fault provisions of an automobile policy issued to appellant's employer by appellee, Northwestern National Insurance Co. Contrary to the terms of the policy, appellants were assured by appellee's agent, James R. Ford Insurance Company, that they would not have to refund the money when they received an expected settlement from the tortfeasor. Relying on this assurance, appellants accepted and spent the money. When appellants received the settlement, appellee sued them for reimbursement of the $8,188.44 payment.
A jury found that the James R. Ford Insurance Company, as agent, had apparent authority to bind its principal, appellee, and that appellants had detrimentally relied on that apparent authority. A verdict was returned in favor of appellants, but the Yell County Circuit Court granted appellee judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal we reverse.
The question of whether an agent is acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority is a question of fact for the jury or trier of fact to determine. Rowland v. Gastroenterology Associates, P.A., 280 Ark. 278, 657 S.W.2d 536 (1983); Babbitt v. Gordon, 251 Ark. 1112, 476 S.W.2d 795 (1972). A trial court may enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if there was no substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. McCuistion v. City of Siloam Springs, 268 Ark. 148, 594 S.W.2d 233 (1980). We must review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deductible therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was entered. Westside Motors v. Curtis, 256 Ark. 237, 506 S.W.2d 563 (1974).
An employee of the James R. Ford Insurance Company testified that she told appellant, Harold Crail, that he would not have to return the money before she handed him the checks issued by appellee in the amount of $8,188.44. She further testified that the James R. Ford Insurance Company had authority to accept premiums, issue binders, change names on a policy, add or delete a named insured, change the amount of coverage, and change automobiles on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbia Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ingraham
...for the jury to determine. Henry v. Gaines-Derden Enters., Inc., 314 Ark. 542, 551, 863 S.W.2d 828 (1993); Crail v. N.W. Nat'l Ins. Co., 282 Ark. 175, 176, 666 S.W.2d 706 (1984); Chadwell v. Pannell, 27 Ark.App. 59, 65, 766 S.W.2d 38 (1989). Arkansas is one of the states that make a distinc......
-
Mercy Health Sys. of Nw. Ark. v. McGraw
...1, 14 (2008). 14.Id. 15.Cmty. Bank of N. Ark. v. Tri–State Propane, 89 Ark.App. 272, 280, 203 S.W.3d 124, 128 (2005). 16.K.C. Props., supra. 17.Crail v. N.W. Nat'l Ins. Co., 282 Ark. 175, 666 S.W.2d 706 (1984); Reed v. Smith Steel, Inc., 77 Ark.App. 110, 78 S.W.3d 118 (2002). 18. The dissen......
-
Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. Way
...is acting within the scope of actual or apparent authority is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Crail v. N.W. Nat'l Ins. Co., 282 Ark. 175, 666 S.W.2d 706 (1984). It is not clear from the stipulated facts that appellees conferred actual authority on Moser because they dispute ha......
-
BOWLING V. HMO PARTNERS, INC.
...is acting within the scope of actual or apparent authority is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Crail v. N.W. Nat'l Ins. Co., 282 Ark. 175, 666 S.W.2d 706 (1984). However, where the facts are undisputed and only one inference can reasonably be drawn from them, it becomes a quest......