Lamb v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Company, H-68-C-14.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. H-68-C-14.,H-68-C-14. |
| Citation | 296 F. Supp. 131 |
| Parties | Richard LAMB, a Minor, by Mrs. Ed Hanson, his Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Donald J. Adams, of Fitton, Meadows & Adams, Harrison, Ark., for plaintiff.
Ronald A. May and Gordon S. Rather, Jr., of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.
This is an action brought on behalf of Richard Lamb, a minor, hereinafter called plaintiff, against the defendant Midwest Mutual Insurance Company based on the uninsured motorist endorsement contained in a policy of motor vehicle insurance issued to plaintiff by the defendant in 1967.
During the policy period plaintiff, while riding his Yamaha motorcycle, described in the policy, was involved in a collision with an automobile. Thereafter he filed this suit alleging that his injuries resulting from the accident were proximately caused by negligence on the part of the driver of the automobile, and that said driver was an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $10,000 plus statutory penalty and attorney's fee. Plaintiff is a citizen of Arkansas, and defendant is an Iowa corporation having its principal place of business in that State. In view of the amount in controversy, federal jurisdiction is established.
The cause is now before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment which presents the sole question of whether the plaintiff is bound by the written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage which he executed when he applied for the policy. The rejection appears in the body of the application, a copy of which is before the Court.
The position of the defendant, naturally, is that the plaintiff is bound by the rejection; plaintiff contends that he is not so bound, and bases his contention solely on his nonage. No claim is made that plaintiff did not execute the rejection, or that he did not understand it, or that the agent of the defendant who sold the policy was guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or overreaching in connection with the rejection. It is inferable that this young man wanted minimum liability coverage with respect to the operation of his motorcycle, and that he wanted to get it as cheaply as possible. Had he purchased uninsured motorist protection, he would have been required to pay an additional premium amounting to $15.
In resisting the motion counsel for plaintiff undertakes to characterize the rejection as a separate contract which plaintiff is free to disaffirm or as being in the nature of a "release" and not binding on the plaintiff.1 The Court agrees with counsel on both sides in their view that the question presented is a novel one, and this case seems to be one of first impression.
Ark.Stats., Ann., § 66-4003 provides in substance that all motor vehicle liability insurance policies issued in this State must afford uninsured motorist protection with minimum limits of $10,000 and $20,000. The statute goes on to provide, however, "that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage." It will be observed that the statute does not require the rejection to appear in the policy or even that it be in writing.
As noted, motor vehicle insurance policies ordinarily contain the uninsured motorist endorsement, and where the policy itself is before the Court regard must be had to the declarations contained therein to determine whether the coverage has actually been provided and whether an additional premium therefor has been paid. As indicated, no claim is made here that plaintiff did otherwise than reject the coverage or that he paid any additional premium for the protection which he now claims.
The Court cannot accept either of the plaintiff's characterizations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grange Ins. Ass'n v. Great American Ins. Co.
...terms"); Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty, 22 Ohio St.2d 161, 258 N.E.2d 429 (1970) (insured must "expressly reject"); Lamb v. Midwest Mutual, 296 F.Supp. 131 (D.Ark.1969) (Arkansas statute requires insured to "manifest his choice."). Under these circumstances, execution of an unambiguous r......
-
Employers Cas. Co. v. Sloan, 12721
...is affirmed. 1 Hereinafter referred to as "Employers."2 Hereinafter referred to as "Southern."3 Now Rule 18.4 Lamb v. Midwest Mutual Ins. Co., 296 F.Supp. 131 (W.D.Ark.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. 1970).5 Lichtenberger v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 7 N.C.App. 269, 172 S.E.2d 284 (......
-
Langstraat v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 2--56365
...assured is a minor. Plaintiff submits no authority which supports his view. Closely in point is the case of Lamb v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Company, 296 F.Supp. 131 (W.D.Ark.1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. In that case the court considered the identical problem which now faces us. In ......
-
Tisdale v. Hicks, CA
...was offered and rejected, and had the appellants not denied it, the judgment would have been proper. In Lamb v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Co., 296 F.Supp. 131 (W.D.Ark.1969), Judge Henley granted a summary judgment against one who claimed uninsured motorist coverage where a form showing he h......