Court Opinion

ID: 9776885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:47:58.218765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:44.400930
License: Public Domain

Ed F. McFaddin, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the Majority, but I arrive at such result by a process of reasoning different from that set forth in the Majority Opinion: hence this Concurring Opinion. The pamphlet which the insurance company caused to be circulated to the appellees herein contained this language: “This policy covers: . . . travel: ... 2. to and from home and school sponsored activities, providing such travel is adult supervised.” (Emphasis my own.) The fact that the policy specified a more detailed kind of adult supervision cannot be seized on by the insurance company as a defense against the coverage of the policy since the pamphlet governs, and not the “fine print” in the policy. See Lawrence v. Providential Life Ins. Co., 238 Ark. 981, 385 S. W. 2d 936. The insurance company insists, however, that, even under the adult supervision language in the pamphlet, the case should have been submitted to the jury to decide whether the kind of adult supervision shown in the evidence here was sufficient to comply with the adult supervision provision in the pamphlet. I would agree with such insistence by the insurance company, except for the fact that the insurance company in the case at bar filed only a general denial. In Childs v. Mann, 240 Ark. 527, 400 S. W. 2d 667, we had occasion to discuss what evidence could be shown by a defendant who filed only a general denial, and that holding is applicable here. According to the pamphlet the policy covered travel to and from home and school sponsored activities. The additional language, “provided such travel is adult supervised,” was and is an exception to the general coverage, and if the insurance company desired to defend in this case because of the absence of adult supervision, that exception to the coverage should have been specifically pleaded. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Barron, 186 Ark. 46, 52 S. W. 2d 733; So. Nat. Ins. Co. v. Pillow, 206 Ark. 769, 177 S. W. 2d 763; Bankers Nat. Ins. Co. v. Hemby, 217 Ark. 749, 233 S. W. 2d 637; and Pinnacle Old Line Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 228 Ark. 458, 307 S. W. 2d 882. The general denial did not allow the insurance company to defend on the absence of adult supervision, so there was no issue to submit to the jury on the matter of adult supervision. The insurance company says that when the evidence of adult supervision was admitted without objection, such constituted an amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence, and cites Parker v. Jones, 221 Ark. 378, 253 S. W. 2d 342; and Antrim v. McElroy, 229 Ark. 870, 319 S. W. 2d 209. But the answer to the insurance company’s argument on this point is found in the fact that the Trial Court did not permit the pleadings to be amended to conform to the evidence. Rather, the Trial Court, in giving an instructed verdict for the plaintiff, struck out the improper evidence, as the Court had a right to do. -I therefore concur in the result reached by the Majority.