Hawkins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-326,89-326 |
| Citation | 792 S.W.2d 307,302 Ark. 582 |
| Parties | Norma Jean HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Sam Sexton, Fort Smith, for appellant.
Thomas B. Pryor, Fort Smith, for appellee.
The appellant, Norma Jean Hawkins, purchased an insurance policy from appellee, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), on June 9, 1986, that provided uninsured motor vehicle bodily injury coverage with limits applicable to each person in the amount of $50,000. On October 7, 1986, Hawkins was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which the driver of the other vehicle had the minimum liability insurance required by our Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-19-101 to 27-19-721 (1987 and Supp.1989), with limits of coverage applicable to one person in the amount of $25,000.
Hawkins claimed that she sustained injuries that exceeded $25,000 and demanded coverage from State Farm under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy. State Farm declined coverage on the basis that the driver of the other vehicle was not uninsured, as he had the requisite minimum liability coverage of $25,000.
Hawkins initially filed suit in the Crawford County Chancery Court and alleged three counts in her complaint: 1) that the policy as written provides such coverage, 2) that the policy as written does not provide such coverage, but that it should have done so, and therefore the policy should be reformed to provide such coverage, and 3) that if the relief requested in the first two counts should be denied, then she is entitled to recover against State Farm's agent, Ken Clark, for misrepresenting the provisions of the policy.
The chancery court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment as to the second count, in which Hawkins sought reformation of the policy. As a result, the case was transferred to the Crawford County Circuit Court because the remaining two claims alleged causes of action at law. No appeal was taken from the chancery court's dismissal of the second count.
State Farm filed a motion in circuit court to dismiss the first count, and Hawkins responded by filing a motion for summary judgment in her favor. Prior to the circuit court's ruling on these motions, Hawkins dismissed her third count against State Farm's agent. Subsequently, the circuit court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss and denied Hawkins' motion for summary judgment.
Hawkins now appeals the orders of the circuit and chancery courts and alleges five points of error on appeal: 1) the insurance policy issued to her provides coverage on its face, 2) the insurance policy fails to clearly exclude coverage so that it should be construed to afford coverage, 3) recovery should be afforded to her under the Arkansas Uninsured Motorist Act, 4) to construe the insurance policy as not affording coverage to her violates Arkansas public policy, and 5) the chancery court erred in finding that State Farm's agent did not have apparent authority to bind State Farm.
We find no merit in any of these points of error and affirm.
Hawkins initially claims that the insurance policy that she purchased from State Farm provides coverage on its face. The pertinent provision of the policy, SECTION III--UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE--COVERAGE U, provides as follows:
We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be caused by accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.
Uninsured Motor Vehicle--means:
1. a land motor vehicle, the ownership, maintenance or use of which is:
a. not insured or bonded for bodily injury liability at the time of the accident; or
b. insured or bonded for bodily injury liability at the time of the accident; but
(1) the limits of liability are less than required by the financial responsibility act of the state where your car is mainly garaged; or
(2) the insuring company denies coverage or is or becomes insolvent....
Arkansas Code Ann. § 23-89-403(a) (1987) requires uninsured motor vehicle coverage of "... not less than limits described in § 27-19-605...." Ark.Code Ann. § 27-19-605(a) (1987) provides in pertinent part that:
No policy or bond shall be effective [as security] ... unless the policy or bond is subject, if the accident resulted in bodily injury or death, to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of bodily injury or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident and subject to said limit for one (1) person, to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) because of bodily injury or death of two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident....
The State Farm policy defines an uninsured motor vehicle to include an insured vehicle, the limits of liability of which are less than required by the financial responsibility act of Arkansas. The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, supra, defines the minimum requirements for liability insurance as noted in section 27-19-605(a).
Hawkins' insurance policy clearly provides that it applies only with respect to an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle involved in Hawkins' accident was insured for the minimum liability coverage of $25,000. In Payne v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 298 Ark. 540, 768 S.W.2d 543 (1989), we held that a motorist who carried at least the required minimum amount of insurance did not become an uninsured motorist if the policy limits became exhausted.
Consequently, the driver of the other vehicle was not an uninsured motorist under the unambiguous terms of Hawkins' policy, and the policy, therefore, does not provide coverage on its face.
Hawkins next claims that the insurance policy fails to clearly exclude coverage so that it should be construed to afford coverage. However, the definition of uninsured motor vehicle appears prominently in italicized letters set in bold type immediately following the insuring clause wherein the term is used. Reading the language and construing its plain meaning, we are unable to find any ambiguity in the definition under these circumstances. The policy merely and clearly provides uninsured coverage, not the underinsured coverage requested by Hawkins.
Hawkins' third point of error alleges that she should recover under the Arkansas Uninsured Motorist Act. This point of error simply repeats the arguments of the first two points of error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castaneda v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co.
...the insured, not the insurer, and thus preclude any windfall to the insurer by a reduction in benefits. Hawkins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Ark. 582, 792 S.W.2d 307 (1990). Both parties base their arguments on the amounts and types of premiums that Progressive collected from Ms. Cast......
-
Mangiapane v. State
...only the power, but the duty, of a court to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the subject matter. Hawkins v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 302 Ark. 582, 792 S.W.2d 307 (1990); Giacona v. State, 39 Ark.App. 101, 839 S.W.2d 228 (1992). Because appellant's notice of appeal was filed......
-
Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...the insured, not the insurer, and thus preclude any windfall to the insurer by a reduction in benefits. Hawkins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Ark. 582, 792 S.W.2d 307 (1990). See also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Farmers Union, 252 Ark. 624, 480 S.W.2d 585 (1972). Such coverage is for t......
-
Arkansas Dept. of Human Services v. Dix, CA 05-875.
...raised in that order. See Jefferson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 356 Ark. 647, 158 S.W.3d 129 (2004); Hawkins v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 302 Ark. 582, 792 S.W.2d 307 (1990); Moore v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 69 Ark.App. 1, 9 S.W.3d 531 (2000). Accordingly, we cannot consi......