Court Opinion

ID: 9774821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:34:50.126841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.550058
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with so much of the majority opinion as holds that the INA policy constituted other insurance to Mrs. Nicholas. The Fireman’s Fund policy lists the insured’s name and address as follows: “Mrs. Hallie Nicholas, Vendor and Ed Briscoe, Vendee Arkansas Abstract Company 212 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas” In 44 Am. Jr. 2d INSURANCE § 1808 it is stated: “It is generally held that in order for a proportionate recovery clause to operate in the insurer’s favor, there must, under the policies, be both an identity of the insured interest and an identity of risk; and the requirement with respect to an identity of risk is not obviated by the fact that the apportionment clause refers to other insurance ‘whether concurrent or not.’ ” In 6 Appleman, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 3905 (1972), the author states: “The apportionment of loss between concurrent insurers is proper, where the policy so provides. Proration provisions are inserted in insurance policies to relieve the insurer from the burden of litigating with the insured as to the validity of other policies, and to eliminate any inducement to the insured to commit fraud. But every rule of construction in apportioning losses must yield to the right of the insured to be fully indemnified, and it must always be remembered that the contribution clause in an insurance policy should not be so applied as to diminish the protection of the insured.” [Emphasis mine] In COUCH ON INSURANCE 2d § 37:1394 (1962), the author states: “By definition, other or double insurance exists where two or more policies of insurance are effected upon or cover the same interests in the same property, against the same risks, and in favor of, or for the benefit of, the same person. As all of these conditions must concur, it follows that if different persons have different interests in the same subject of insurance, each may insure his interest without effecting other or double insurance. Likewise a policy of insurance containing a stipulation against ‘other insurance’ is not invalidated by the fact that at the time of its issuance a prior policy covering the same property is in existence, unless the insured has an interest in such prior policy, or will derive a benefit under it, in the event of the destruction of the property.” Also, in 5 Appleman, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 3057 (1970), the author states: “The better rule is to the effect that the interests of vendor and vendee are distinct and different, and that an insurance by such vendee upon his own interest will not nullify insurance previously taken out by the vendor. Furthermore, the trial court found: (Decree of Oct. 10, 1974) “16. That the plaintiff was never at any time informed by any of the parties of the existence of the policy coverage issued by the defendant, Insurance Company of North America, and had no actual knowledge of that fact until after payment had been made by Insurance Company of North America to Coates and Briscoe.” Thus, while I would prefer that the pro-ration be denied on the theory that it should yield to the right of Mrs. Nicholas to be fully indemnified, there is another basis upon which it should be denied i.e. another policy obtained without the knowledge of the insured does not constitute other insurance. See Hall v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 403, 51 N.W. 524 (1892), St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Crutchfield, 162 Tex. 586, 350 S.W. 2d 534 (1961) and 5 Appleman, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE § 3909 (1972). Therefore, I would enter judgment against Fireman’s Fund for the full amount of the policy, the 12% statutory penalty and a $2,500 attorney’s fee. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.