Case Title: Harris v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.

Citation: 448 S.W.2d 652

Docket Number: 5-5098

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1970-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
448 S.W.2d 652 (1970) Herndon HARRIS, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. No. 5-5098. Supreme Court of Arkansas. January 12, 1970. Murphy & Carlisle, Fayetteville, for appellant. Putman, Davis & Bassett, Fayetteville, for appellees. JONES, Justice. This is an appeal by Herndon Harris from a summary judgment in favor of Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company entered by the Washington County Circuit Court in a suit by Harris against Southern Farm on an uninsured motorist policy. The question presented is whether Harris can recover from Southern Farm on a policy issued to him and also *653 recover on a policy issued to the owner of a vehicle he was driving. While Harris was driving a pickup truck owned by Bartholomew he was injured in a collision caused by the negligence of Browning, an uninsured motorist. Southern Farm had issued an uninsured motorist policy to Harris with maximum coverage of $10,000, and Truck Insurance Exchange had issued a similar policy with a similar maximum coverage to Bartholomew. The injuries sustained by Harris resulted in damage in excess of $20,000, or the combined maximum coverage of both policies. Truck Insurance Exchange paid its maximum coverage of $10,000 and Harris sued Southern Farm for $10,000. Southern Farm denied liability under the "other insurance" provisions of its policy providing as follows: The trial court granted Southern Farm's motion for summary judgment and Harris relies on the following point for reversal: Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66-4003 (Repl.1966) provides as follows: Ark.Stat.Ann. § 75-1427 (Supp.1967), as amended, reads as follows: We agree with the appellee that this case is controlled by our decision in M.F.A. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 245 Ark. 230, 431 S.W.2d 742. We fully disposed of the specific point relied on by Mr. Harris in the case at bar, when in the Wallace case we said: We conclude that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. To hold otherwise, under the facts of this case, would permit an insured to obtain double coverage for the price of one by the simple process of exchanging automobiles. Courts may enforce legal contracts or void illegal ones, but courts may not expand contracts beyond their terms and the intent of the parties. The judgment is affirmed.