Lisenbey v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc.
| Citation | 245 Ark. 144,431 S.W.2d 484 |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-4617,5-4617 |
| Parties | Robert L. LISENBEY et ux., Appellants, v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Reinberger, Eilbott, Smith & Staten, Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Coskrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, Little Rock, for appellee.
The question here is whether homeowners whose house is destroyed by fire can maintain successive suits upon their fire insurance policy, first to recover for the loss of the house and then to recover for the loss of its contents. This appeal is from the trial court's holding that the successful maintenance of the first suit was bar to the second suit. We hold that the court's conclusion was correct.
The Lisenbeys obtained from the appellee a homeowner's policy which insured their dwelling for $10,000 and its contents for 40% of that amount. House and contents were totally destroyed by fire. The Lisenbeys at first filed suit to recover $10,000 for the loss of the house and $4,000 for the loss of their personal property. The insurer interposed several defenses. Before trial the plaintiffs took a nonsuit with respect to the personal property-perhaps to safeguard their claim to the statutory penalty and attorney's fee, since the valued policy law applies only to real estate. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66-3901 (Repl.1966). The jury's verdict awarded the plaintiffs the full $10,000. They then brought the present action for the loss of the personal property, which the complaint valued at $3,300. The trial court, as we have said, entered judgment for the defendant.
In seeking a reversal the appellants cite primarily decisions of this court holding insurance policies to be severable contracts. In Glober & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Chisenhall, 162 Ark. 231, 258 S.W. 135 (1924), the policy insured a dwelling house for $2,000 and a barn for a like amount. After the house burned the insurer paid that loss and purportedly canceled the policy. The barn then was destroyed by a second fire. We held that the policy was in effect two contracts; so that the cancellation of the first, with respect to the house, did not affect the second, covering the barn. That case was followed upon analogous facts in National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Henry, 181 Ark. 637, 27 S.W.2d 786 (1930).
We do not consider those cases to be pertinent here, because they did not involve the matter of splitting a cause of action. That was the issue in State Life Ins. Co. v. Goodrum, 189 Ark. 509, 74 S.W.2d 230 (1934), also cited by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman's Service Center, Inc. v. F.D.I.C.
...suit was brought, thus preventing multiple litigation. 221 Ark. at 141, 252 S.W.2d 388. In Lisenbey v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc., 245 Ark. 144, 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), the supreme court held that claims resulting from the loss of personalty and realty in one fire cov......
-
Martin v. Arthur
...Field v. Gazette Publishing Co., 187 Ark. 253, 59 S.W.2d 19 (1933). Moreover, for the reasons given in Lisenby v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 144, 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), a single cause of action cannot be split. Spickes knew in 1977 that the first pacemaker was faulty; he cannot man......
-
Mountain Pure, LLC v. Turner Holdings, LLC
...could not later sue for other damages resulting from the defendant's fraud. Similarly, in Lisenbey v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc., 245 Ark. 144, 431 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Ark. 1968), the Arkansas Supreme Court held claims resulting from the loss of personalty and realty in......
-
Morgan v. Clinton State Bank
...the whole, the residue, or another part." (citations omitted) 125 Ark. at 401-02, 188 S.W. 1186. See also Lisenbey v. Farm Bureau Mutual Inc. Co., 245 Ark. 144, 431 S.W.2d 484 (1968), 11 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1361A, In the instant case, the appellant's compl......