Court Opinion

ID: 9677216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:46:23.458869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:54.496661
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the maj ority opinion because I think the j ury and the insurance company were right. One typical weather report (January 11, 1978) stated: By mid-morning light freezing rain, sleet and snow covered much of central and southwest Arkansas. The area coverage is expected to continue to increase over the state today... while from one to three inches, which includes a mixture of snow, sleet and freezing rain is forecast for the southern section. The appellant had insurance with the appellee. His insurance was evidenced by a standard fire insurance policy with an attached extended coverage endorsement. The extended coverage is a named peril insurance endorsement. In this case the coverage was extended to specifically include direct loss by “windstorm, hail, explosion, riots ...” and a number of other named occurrences. The policy went on to define certain terms and under one such paragraph, headed: “Provisions Applicable Only to Windstorm and Hail,” said, “This Company shall not be liable for loss-caused directly or indirectly by (a) frost or cold weather or (b) ice (other than hail), snowstorm, waves, tidal wave, high water or overflow, whether driven by wind or not.” I agree with the appellant that the extended coverage endorsement applied only to direct loss by hail. This could mean damages such as puncturing the roof, denting the sides, breaking windows or other damage caused by the impact of hail. I would affirm.