Court Opinion

ID: 9666239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:08:47.911898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.206341
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, (concurring). I dissented in the case of Roman v. Smith, 228 Ark. 833, 314 S. W. 2d 225; but under the Majority holding in Roman v. Smith, and under the unanimous holding in Mabbitt v. Wilkerson, 220 Ark. 270, 247 S. W. 2d 201, the decree of the Chancery Court in the case now before us must be affirmed; and I so vote. However, I have concluded that we should now give notice to the Bench and Bar that we will re-examine our former cases when a ease like this one is next presented to us. For myself, I hereby give such notice. I think the weight of authority, and certainly the better reasoned cases, are contrary to our holding in Mabbitt v. Wilkerson supra, and Roman v. Smith, supra. Some of the cases which I consider as stating the better rule are these: Prudential Ins. Co. v. Broadhurst (Calif.), 321 P. 2d 75; Shaw v. Board (Calif.), 241 P. 2d 635; Pendleton v. Great Southern (Okla.), 273 P. 1007; John Hancock Co. v. Soluri (U.S.D.C. N.Y.), 134 F. Supp. 86; Parrish v. Kaska, 204 F. 2d 451; and Kurgan v. Prudential (Ill.), 91 N. E. 2d 620. The fact that the insured, having the right to change the beneficiary, did not elect to do so, or to take any steps in that regard, leads me to believe that the insured decided to allow the beneficiary of the policy to remain exactly as written. The purpose of this concurrence is to give notice that I intended to re-examine the question anew should it ever again arise while I am a member of the Court.