Court Opinion

ID: 9681543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:22.76717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.343510
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddiN, Justice (dissenting). I am of the firm opinion that the judgment in this case must be reversed because of the failure of the. insured (appellee) to file proof of loss. It is not claimed that a proof of loss was filed; and I can find no facts mating a case of waiver. The policy sued on here provided: “1. Insured’s Duties When Loss Occurs. When loss occurs, the insured shall -...(c) file proof of loss with the company within sixty days after the occurrence of loss, unless such time is extended in writing by the company, in the form of a sworn statement of the insured setting forth the interest of the insured and of all others in the property affected, any encumbrances thereon, the actual cash value thereof at time of loss, the amount, place, time and cause of such loss, the amount of rental or other expense for which reimbursement is provided under this policy, together with original receipts therefor, and the description and amounts of all other insurance covering such property.” We have held somewhat similar provisions in insurance policies to be valid. One of the most recent cases is that of Cook. Comm. v. U. S. F. & G. Co.. 216 Ark. 743, 227 S. W. 2d 135, in which Mr. Justice Leflar, speaking for a unanimous Court, said: “Our holding is that, assuming that .the plaintiff has rights under the contract, he still cannot recover because he has not complied with the proof of loss requirement in the contract. “The proof of loss clause was a valid part of the insurance contract. Similar clauses have been many times sustained and enforced in this court. Teutonia Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 72 Ark. 484, 82 S. W. 840; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Moose, 190 Ark. 161, 78 S. W. 2d 64; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Swaim, 200 Ark. 819, 142 S. W. 2d 209; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Drake, 204 Ark. 964, 165 S. W. 2d 947. The insurance company’s right to rely upon non-compliance with the clause is not waived by a general denial of liability asserted by 'the company after the period for filing a proof of loss has expired. Smith v. American National Ins. Co., 111 Ark. 32, 162 S. W. 772; Illinois Bankers Life Assn. v. Byassee, 169 Ark. 230, 275 S. W. 519, 41 A. L. R. 379. The clause is a'part of the contract under which plaintiff claims, and he cannot ignore it in making his claim.” In the case at bar the majority opinion does not claim that any proof of loss was furnished; rather the majority says the proof of loss was waived. And how was it 'waived? The majority says the proof of loss was waived because the insurance company remained silent! ! ! Just why silence would be a waiver is too difficult for me to understand. We have held that a denial of liability (within the time for filing proof of loss) is a waiver; we have held that sending blanks to the insured is a waiver of the time requirement; we have held that retaining the proof of loss is a waiver of its defects; we have held that questioning any attempted proof of loss is a waiver of its defects;1 now we are holding that the failure to do anything is a waiver of proof of loss. Thus the insurance company is really “between the rock and the hard place”: heretofore if the insurance company answered the letter and did anything at all, such was a waiver; and now if the insurance company does not do anything, it is a waiver. In short, the proof of loss requirement in an insurance contract is just about entirely eliminated by judicial destruction! So far as T can find, the statement quoted in the majority opinion from Appleton on “Insurance”, (Vol. 5, § 3633) is based entirely on the South Carolina case of Ward v. Pacific Fire Ins. Co., 115 S. C. 53, 104 S. E. 316. I submit that the facts in that case differentiate it from the facts in the case at bar. A study of the South Carolina case discloses that the fire loss occurred March 31, 1916; and within three days the defendant insurance company was notified. On May 8th, the insurance agent forwarded a letter to the company; on July 21st the insured’s attorney wrote the company inquiring about the matter; and then on July 28th the insurance company wrote the attorney this letter: “We have for acknowledgment your favor of the 21st inst. under above loss, and beg to advise that the matter has had our attention”; and on the letter there was the pencil notation: ‘ ‘ Having attention”. When the suit was filed in January, 1917, the company claimed, inter alia, that no proof of loss had been filed. This claim was held to be without merit probably also because the South Carolina Court holds that denial of liability at the time of the trial is a waiver of the proof of loss. (See McBryde v. Ins. Co., 55 S. C. 589, 33 S. E. 729, 74 Am. St. Rep. 769.) Our cases hold that denial of liability at the time of the trial is not a waiver of proof of loss. So the South Carolina case is not based on a line of authorities consonant with our own. Furthermore, in the South Carolina case, the insurance company lulled the plaintiff and his attorney into a feeling of safety by advising them that the matter was “having attention”. We find no such “lulling” in the case at bar; so I submit that the South Carolina case is not a good authority on which to base the holding of -waiver that the majority is making in the case at bar. For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent.   Cases to sustain the foregoing statements regarding waiver are collected in West’s Arkansas Digest, “Insurance”, § 557-561, inc.