Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hardin
| Decision Date | 16 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2480,5-2480 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Raymond HARDIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Cockrill, Laser & McGehee, Little Rock, for appellant.
S. Hubert Mayes and S. Hubert Mayes, Jr., Little Rock, Hout & Thaxton, Newport, for appellee.
Appellee, Raymond Hardin, while driving his automobile along a public highway in Jackson County, observed a grass fire that was endangering a neighbor's home. Hardin stopped his automobile, leaving it parked on the hard-surface portion of the highway, and went to help put out the fire, the smoke of which was blowing across the highway. V. O. Calhoun, a resident of Woodruff County, traveling on the highway, drove his automobile into Hardin's car. Calhoun was severely injured and his automobile was damaged in the sum of $1,190. Hardin had liability insurance with appellant, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. The insurance company assumed control of the litigation, which it had a right to do under the terms of its policy, and retained the law firm of Yingling & Yingling at Searcy in White County to defend the action.
The policy of liability insurance issued by appellant insurance company to Hardin had the limit of $5,000 for injury to one person and $5,000 for property damage. Hardin realized that he did not have much insurance protection so far as personal injury was concerned. He further realized that the case was pending in Woodruff County, where Mr. Calhoun lived; that Calhoun was well liked and respected in that county and had received serious injuries. He also realized that Calhoun had a good cause of action. He therefore sought to prevail on appellant insurance company to make an effort to settle the case within the policy limits, but he was unable to get the insurance company to take any action in that respect. Therefore for his own protection he engaged the services of Mr. W. J. Dungan, an attorney of Augusta, in Woodruff County. Mr. Dungan realized the danger of the case and discussed settlement with the attorneys for the plaintiff, who agreed to accept some amount within the policy limits if the insurance company would make a settlement of that kind. Mr. Dungan conveyed that information to the insurance company, but, although representatives of the company considered the case had a settlement value of about $2,500, they made no offer to the plaintiff at all to settle the case for any amount.
The case proceeded to trial; after the jury had been out for some time they returned for further instructions and at that time disclosed that they were divided 8 to 4. The jury again retired, and Mr. John Eldridge, attorney for the plaintiff, then told Mr. Ed Yingling that he would settle the entire case, personal injury and property damage, for $4,000. Mr. Yingling conveyed this information to Mr. Meacham, agent for the insurance company, who at the time was sitting in the court room. However, he had not been in the court room during the trial and had not heard the testimony. He declined the offer and made no counter offer. Soon thereafter the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $25,000 for personal injuries, less 15% attributable to the negligence of Calhoun. The insurance company took the necessary steps to effect an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Mr. Hardin, after conferring with counsel, reached the conclusion that there was not much chance of reversal. He therefore began strenuous negotiations in an attempt to settle the matter and save as much as possible. He succeeded in getting the plaintiff to accept $15,000 in settlement of the judgment. Appellant insurance company paid on the judgment the amount named in the policy for personal injury and property damage. Mr. Hardin paid the balance of $8,810. Later he filed suit against the insurance company for the amount that he was compelled to pay on the judgment, on the theory that the insurance company was negligent or did not act in good faith in failing to settle the case within the policy limits. This case was tried in the Pulaski Circuit Court, resulting in a verdict for Hardin against the company in the sum of $8,810. From this judgment the insurance company has appealed.
First, appellant contends there is no substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. At the trial of the case the plaintiff had proved severe injuries plus the property damage of $1,190. The case was being tried in his home county, where he was well respected, and he was represented by able lawyers of that community. He sought judgment in the sum of $33,000, and although the insurance company stood to lose only $5,000 on a personal injury judgment, the policyholder stood to lose over $25,000. There is sharp dispute in the testimony as to just what occurred when Mr. Ed Yingling told Mr. Meacham that Mr. Eldridge had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of America
...should run only from the date of the insured's judgment against the insurance company. See, e.g., Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 233 Ark. 1011, 351 S.W.2d 153, 156 (1961). This same reasoning--that the litigation is not a suit on the insurance contract but one in tort--has al......
-
Members Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blissett
...interest on the Frisby judgment against Blissett. The substance of our holding on this point in Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 233 Ark. 1011, 351 S.W.2d 153, and Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Busby, supra, is that a suit by an insured against his liability insurance carrier for negli......
-
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mitchell
...or acted in bad faith in such refusal is a question of fact for jury determination. Parker, supra, and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hardin, Ark., 351 S.W.2d 153. In harmony with such law, the trial court herein instructed the jury, as to the question to be decided by it, i......
-
Bollinger v. Nuss
...policy limits was negligent or acted in bad faith is a question for the trier of fact in each case. (Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 233 Ark. 1011, 351 S.W.2d 153.) Where the insurance company acts honestly and in good faith upon adequate information, it should not be held lia......