Court Opinion

ID: 9779213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:40:20.909496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:23.578475
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I see no reason why we cannot find policy coverage in this case and at the same time reaffirm our holding in Holcomb v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 254 Ark. 514, 495 S.W.2d 155 (1973). Concededly, the insurance policy here under consideration expressly excluded coverage for uninsured motorist protection with respect to vehicles that were not covered under the policy. Nevertheless, the exclusion was ineffective because it does not comply with the law. Travelers Insurance Co. v. National Farmers Union, 252 Ark. 624, 480 S.W.2d 585 (1972). The appropriate part of Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-403 (1987) states: No automobile liability insurance, covering liability arising out of the ownership ... or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered . . . unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles .... [Emphasis added.] The statute mandates that coverage for uninsured motorist protection be included in all policies, or by supplemental agreement, unless the coverage is expressly rejected in writing. The statute requires coverage to be extended to “persons” insured rather than “vehicles” insured. Therefore, the statutory language creates a personal insurance policy coverage as distinguished from the appellee’s attempt to make the coverage vehicular. This coverage should not be confused with first party coverage, commonly referred to as PIP, as established by Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-204 (1987). Neither the policy holder nor the decedent, an insured under the policy, rejected the uninsured motorist coverage in writing. The death was caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. Therefore, coverage was clearly established and was not legally excluded. In Holcomb the policy owner owned two vehicles. He obtained uninsured motorist coverage on one vehicle and in writing expressly rejected coverage on the other. It was the vehicle which had been expressly rejected from uninsured motorist coverage that Holcomb was riding in at the time of the occurrence. In the present case there has been no express rejection for any vehicle. The Holcomb opinion was a 4-3 decision that relied upon Owens v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 487 P.2d 402 (Ariz. 1971); Shipley v. American Standard Ins. Co., 158 N.W.2d 238 (Neb. 1968); and McElyea v. Safeway Ins. Co., 266 N.E.2d 146 (Ill. 1970). McElyea has been overruled by Doxtater v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 290 N.E.2d 284 (Ill. 1972). Owens is not in point with the current fact situation because the vehicle involved had been specifically rejected from uninsured motorist coverage. Shipley is not in point because the issue involved was whether a motorcycle was a vehicle within the uninsured motorist coverage. The present majority opinion admits that broadly interpreted, Holcomb is still in the minority view that validates such exclusions as we are dealing with here. I do not think we need to overrule Holcomb to reverse this case. However, if necessary I would be willing to do so because the minority view simply will not stand scrutiny under the Arkansas statute relating to uninsured motorist coverage.