Ward v. Consolidated Underwriters, 75--305
| Decision Date | 03 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--305,75--305 |
| Parties | William Chester WARD, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS and Medallion Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Eubanks, Files & Hurley, by Hugh F. Spinks, Little Rock, for appellant.
Plegge, Lowe & Whitmore, by Perry V. Whitmore, Little Rock, for appellees.
Appellee Consolidated Underwriters issued to appellant an automobile liability insurance policy which included an uninsured motorist provision as required by Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66--4003 (Repl.1966). Appellee Medallion Insurance Company assumed the policy coverage. The policy included coverage for injuries caused by a 'hit-and-run automobile' which was defined thusly: 'Hit-and-run automobile means an automobile which causes bodily injury to an insured arising out of physical contact of such automobile with the insured or with an automobile which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident, provided: (1) there cannot be ascertained the identity of either the operator or owner of such 'hit-and-run automobile. . . .'
Appellant suffered physical injuries when he was forced off the road by an unknown driver of a vehicle. Appellant invoked the uninsured motorist coverage of his policy. Appellee Medallion denied coverage on the ground that there was no physical contract between appellant's vehicle and the unidentified car that allegedly ran him off the road. Appellant brought suit for a declaratory judgment asking that the physical contact limitation be declared void as against public policy of the State of Arkansas. The trial court held that 'since that (the hit-and-run policy provision) is greater coverage than the pertinent statute required, * * * the 'impact provision' is contractual and valid.' Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to find that the physical impact provision of the Medallion policy of insurance was void as against the public policy of the state.
Appellant argues that since the uninsured motorist statute is remedial in nature, the court should construe the act liberally to accomplish its remedial purpose. Appellant acknowledges that we have held that the burden of showing the other vehicle is uninsured is on the plaintiff. South. Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. v. Gottsponer, 245 Ark. 735, 434 S.W.2d 280 (1968). In the case at bar, however, appellant argues that although this may be a proper requirement as to the burden of proof when the driver is known and can be identified, it should not be required where, as here, the driver and vehicle are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rohret v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Indemnity Insurance Co., 112 Ariz. 160, 540 P.2d 126 (1975), Vacating 22 Ariz.App. 255, 526 P.2d 779 (1974); Ward v. Consolidated Underwriters, 259 Ark. 696, 535 S.W.2d 830 (1976); Rosnick v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 172 Conn. 416, 374 A.2d 1076 (1977); Ely v. State Farm Mutual Automobi......
-
Hammon v. Farmers Ins. Group
...on deletion of words "unknown motorist" from bill eventually enacted as Arizona's uninsured motorist law); Ward v. Consolidated Underwriters, 259 Ark. 696, 535 S.W.2d 830 (1976); Rosnick v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 172 Conn. 416, 374 A.2d 1076 (1977); Prosk v. Allstate Insurance Co., ......
-
Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...341, 150 S.W.3d 276, 279 (2004) ; Home Ins. Co. v. Harwell , 263 Ark. 884, 885, 568 S.W.2d 17, 18 (1978) ; Ward v. Consol. Underwriters , 259 Ark. 696, 698, 535 S.W.2d 830, 832 (1976) ; Sw. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Miller , 254 Ark. 387, 391–92, 493 S.W.2d 432, 434 (1973). This interpretati......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Henderson
...requirement does not violate public policy. State Farm relies heavily on this court's previous holding in Ward v. Consolidated Underwriters, 259 Ark. 696, 535 S.W.2d 830 (1976). In Ward, the appellant suffered physical injuries when he was forced off the road by an unknown driver of a vehic......