Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. McGibboney
| Citation | 436 S.W.2d 824,245 Ark. 1016 |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4737,5--4737 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Frank McGIBBONEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Hodges, Hodges & Hodges, Newport, for appellant.
Lightle & Tedder, Searcy, for appellee.
In a case decided in 1967 the appellee, Frank McGibboney, obtained a $1,350 judgment against Raymond Reed as damages arising from a traffic collision. Reed v. McGibboney, 243 Ark. 789, 422 S.W.2d 115 (1967). Under our direct action statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66--4001 (Repl.1966), McGibboney brought this suit against Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, which is alleged to have been Reed's liability insurance carrier on the date of the collision, August 23, 1965.
Southern Farm denied liability on the ground that Reed's policy expired on July 18, 1965, and was not reinstated until August 25--two days after the accident. The trial court, sitting without a jury, took the case under advisement and later entered judgment for the plaintiff upon a general finding that 'Policy #320934, insuring Raymond Reed, was in force on August 23, 1965.' Upon such a general finding the case stands as if a properly instructed jury had returned a verdict for the appellee. Blass v. Anderson, 57 Ark. 483, 22 S.W. 94 (1893). Hence the single question here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of fact.
Before discussing the merits of the case we pause to answer the appellant's contention that the venue should have been laid in Randolph county, where Reed lives, rather than in White county, where McGibboney lives. The objection was waived, because Southern Farm entered its appearance by filing a general demurrer to the complaint before raising any question about the venue. Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. Speer, 225 Ark. 948, 286 S.W.2d 485 (1956); Greer v. Newbill, 89 Ark. 509, 117 S.W. 531 (1909).
On the merits it is possible that the trial court reached its general conclusion upon any or all of three findings of fact: (a) That Reed paid the premium on August 2, 1965, thereby reinstating the policy; (b) that the company should have applied funds in its possession, belonging to Reed, to pay the premium when it became due; and (c) that the company itself elected to treat the policy as having been reinstated as of August 21, 1965--two days before the accident occurred. We find the third ground to be a sufficient basis for the trial court's judgment and therefore confine our discussion to that point.
Reed was in the insurance business at Pocahontas and had been Southern Farm's agent for several years. He admittedly received notice that the liability policy on his Ford car expired on July 18, 1965. On August 25--two days after the accident--he sent a check to the company for the premium, with an application for reinstatement.
On the following day the company executed what appears to have been a printed form entitled Amended Declaration. That instrument identified Reed's policy and recited that the declarations in the policy were amended to provide that the term of the policy 'shall be from the effective date 08/25/65 to 02/25/66 12:01 A.M. * * * and for such succeeding terms of six calendar months hereafter as the required renewal premium is paid by the insured on or before the expiration of the current term and accepted by the Company.' It is recognized by both litigants that the foregoing Amended Declaration effectively reinstated the policy as of August 25, 1965.
In October of that year Reed bought a second car, a Rambler. Under the company's regulations Reed was entitled to a reduced premium rate upon each vehicle if he carried a policy on each one. On the first car the reduction would take effect when the policy was renewed at the expiration of its six-month term, in February, 1966.
Reed accordingly applied for liability coverage on the Rambler. The company issued a policy on that car and also executed and sent to Reed another Amended Declaration with respect to the first policy, which recited that the term of the policy 'shall be from the effective date 08/21...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Phillips
...257; McLendon v. Johnson, 243 Ark. 218, 419 S.W.2d 309; Saliba v. Saliba, 178 Ark. 250, 11 S.W.2d 774; Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. McGibboney, 245 Ark. 1016, 436 S.W.2d 824; Reliable Life Insurance Co. v. Elby, 247 Ark. 514, 446 S.W.2d 215; Jones v. Jones, 227 Ark. 836, 301 S.W.2d......
-
Financial Sec. Assur. Co. v. Wright
...jury would have been justified in inferring that Kelly's testimony would have been unfavorable to appellant. Southern Farm Ins. Co. v. McGibboney, 245 Ark. 1016, 436 S.W.2d 824. See also, Reliable Life Ins. Co. v. Elby, 247 Ark. 514, 446 S.W.2d 215; Abbott v. Protho, 228 Ark. 230, 307 S.W.2......
-
Garrison Properties, Inc. v. Branton Const. Co., Inc.
...of the trial court exactly as we would a jury verdict, and give it the same force and binding effect. In Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. McGibbony 245 Ark. 1016, 436 S.W.2d 824, the court was considering a judgment based upon a general finding by the circuit court, sitting without a j......