Court Opinion

ID: 9759888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:31:47.47254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.921129
License: Public Domain

John I. Turtle, Justice, dissenting. The first suit was filed in Tulaski County on January 20, 1980. Appellees sought to recover benefits from appellant life insurance company on a policy covering the son of appellees. The son was killed during an argument with a third party. The appellant resisted the claim on the grounds that the decedent was the aggressor and therefore death was not accidental within the terms of the policy. The first suit was dismissed and refiled in Saline County. The appellant responded to the Saline County suit by stating that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-3234 required the action to be brought in Tulaski County. If the appellees were to dismiss the Saline County suit they would be barred by ARCT Rule 41 because a second dismissal is considered an adjudication on the merits of the cause of action. Appellees then filed a third complaint in Tulaski County. The Saline County action is still pending. Appellant sought dismissal of the present suit on the grounds that another action was pending in Saline County. If the Saline County action was void then no other action was pending. Therefore, the trial court was correct. It is my opinion that Rule 41 and Rule 12(b)(8) were not intended to deny a trial on the merits of a case. I think the rules were adopted for the purpose of moving the dockets along and preventing multiple suits for harrassment purposes. Hollingsworth, J., joins in this dissent.