Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5--5787
| Decision Date | 06 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5787,5--5787 |
| Citation | 477 S.W.2d 186,252 Ark. 57 |
| Parties | Faye SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lightle, Tedder & Hannah, Searcy, for appellant.
Cockrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, by Frank L. Watson, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant and her husband had previously secured separate judgments against appellee's insured, Loleta Goble. See Smith v. Goble, 248 Ark. 415, 452 S.W.2d 336 (1970). The appellee insurer paid the entire policy limits of $10,000 to appellant's husband and $7,641.60 to appellant for her injuries. However, the appellee refused to pay her any part of the additional $5,000 which the jury awarded her for loss of consortium. This resulted in the present action. The trial court, sitting as a jury, found the issues in favor of the appellee and dismissed appellant's complaint. For reversal the appellant asserts that the recovery for loss of consortium was expressly included within the terms of the policy. Appellant argues that loss of consortium constitutes damages within the purview of Goble's policy clause which provides coverage for damages resulting from '* * * (a) bodily injury sustained by other persons * * *' and that the company bound itself to pay her for '* * * damages for care and loss of services' resulting from personal injuries. Appellant asserts that since consortium is a compensable element of damages arising from bodily injuries, citing Missouri Pac. Trans. Co. v. Miller, 227 Ark. 351, 299 S.W.2d 41 (1957), her $5,000 consortium damages are included as coverage by the terms 'care and loss of services.'
The appellee does not take issue with this assertion. However, appellee correctly relies upon the provision in the Goble policy which limits appellee's liability. This provision reads:
* * *'
This provision clearly and unambiguously limits the recovery for damages for bodily injuries sustained by any one person in any one accident. In the case at bar the limit of liability is $10,000. We agree with the trial court that since appellant's husband was paid the full amount of the policy limits for his bodily injuries, the appellant cannot recover her derivative claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...of consortium claims. See Wohlberg v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 262 F.Supp. 711, 712 (D.Mont.1967); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 Ark. 57, 477 S.W.2d 186 (1972); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ball, 127 Cal.App.3d 568, 570-571, 179 Cal.Rptr. 644 (1981); Gass v. Cardu......
-
Pacific Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
...similar cases, see, e.g., Montgomery v. Farmers Ins. Group, 585 F.Supp. 618 (S.D.Ind.1984) (consortium); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 Ark. 57, 477 S.W.2d 186 (1972) (consortium); Perkins v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co., 44 Cal.App.2d 427, 112 P.2d 670 (1941) (services and medic......
-
Littlefield v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...532 A.2d 692, 693 (Me.1987); Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305, 524 A.2d 641, 645 (1987); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 Ark. 57, 477 S.W.2d 186, 187 (1972); Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Knight, see note 15, supra; Sharff v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So.2d 1223, 12......
-
Thompson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...jurisdictions and authorities are in accord with this position under analogous circumstances. E.g., Smith v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 252 Ark. 57, 477 S.W.2d 186 (1972); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cornelson, 272 Md. 48, 321 A.2d 149 (1974); Williams v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.......