Court Opinion

ID: 9679531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:55:18.464247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:14.559298
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. The court of appeals decided this case on a ground not raised by either party, i.e., that declaratory judgment was premature. Judge Corbin’s concurring opinion concerned nonjoinder of parties, another matter not addressed in the briefs. Since Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 29(6) did not allow us to accept supplemental briefs on review, we were somewhat handicapped, as the parties were, in dealing with these issues. That rule was changed by a Per Curiam dated January 17, 1989. I agree with the result in this case and write only to address the court of appeals’ concurring opinion. Judge Corbin indicated that the failure to join those who had sustained injuries but had not yet filed suit against the insured was fatal to the action. The controversy in this case is between the insurer and the insured over the amount of coverage. Any effect a declaratory judgment on that subject would have on these potential plaintiffs is so indirect that they should not be considered necessary parties in my opinion. There is not a consensus of opinion on whether those who have actually filed suit are necessary parties. See Annotation, Declaratory Judgment — Parties,! I A.L.R.2d § 12 (1960); 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 124 (1956). Newbern, J., joins in the concurrence.