{
  "id": 6140108,
  "name": "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jerry D. MARTENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allstate Insurance v. Martens",
  "decision_date": "1982-06-02",
  "docket_number": "CA 81-388",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. App. 157"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "633 S.W.2d 715"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722418
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 720",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1629931
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/0720-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715331
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712422
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0384-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.83,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4724339141007835
    },
    "sha256": "33a74b59318aaafc19d17d8d58a00f37c7472ad88dcaec5c9dc79d255fcb976e",
    "simhash": "1:73ef802220d45dbc",
    "word_count": 711
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:41:16.889106+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jerry D. MARTENS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nIn August of 1980, tools belonging to the appellee were stolen from a locked metal storage building located on Bridgewater Lane in Fayette-ville, Arkansas. The appellee was constructing a new residence for himself on this lot. The storage building was a construction office, temporarily placed on the building site. The appellant had issued a homeowner\u2019s insurance policy to appellee, which covered appellee\u2019s home and its contents, located on Greenbriar Stre\u00e9t, Springdale, Arkansas. The appellee made demand on the appellant for payment under the policy. The appellant denied liability, and this lawsuit resulted. The trial court found in favor of the appellee, and entered a judgment for damages, statutory penalty and attorney\u2019s fees. The appellant appeals from the trial court\u2019s decision.\nThe homeowner\u2019s policy on the Greenbriar Street home is written in \u201cplain language\u201d and provides, in part, as follows:\nPart 2 \u2014 Coverage C\nPersonal Property Protection\nWe Will Cover:\n1 Personal property owned or used by an insured person anywhere in the world. . . .\n* * #\nWe do not cover:\nb) theft in or from a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in construction, until the dwelling is completed and occupied...\nWe must construe the words used by the parties as they are taken and understood in their plain and ordinary meaning. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Milburn, 269 Ark. 384, 601 S.W.2d 841 (1980). This is especially appropriate where the insurance policy itself is written in \u201cplain language\u201d.\nThe appellant argues that the insurance policy did not cover the appellee\u2019s loss. The appellant contends that the loss was excluded because it was a \u201ctheft in or from a dwelling under construction\u201d or that the tools were \u201cmaterials and supplies for use in construction\u201d.\nIt is clear that the loss suffered by the appellee is a covered one, unless it is excluded by one of the exceptions. Exclusions are strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured, the reason being that the insurer wrote the policy without any consultation with the insured. Southern Title Ins. Co. v. Oller, 268 Ark. 300, 595 S.W.2d 681 (1980); Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Owen, 252 Ark. 720, 480 S. W.2d 558 (1972), appeal after remand 255 Ark. 526, 501 S.W.2d 229 (1973).\nThe tools were not located in the dwelling, and therefore they could not have been taken \u201cin or from\u2019\u2019 the dwelling. Had the appellant desired, it could have defined \u201cin or from a dwelling\u201d so as to include the entire premises on which the dwelling is located, including outbuildings. It did not do so, and we hold that the loss is covered by the terms of the policy.\nWe also find no merit to the argument that the tools were \u201cmaterials and supplies for use in construction.\u201d \u201cMaterials\u201d are the basic matter (as metal, wood, plastic, fiber) from which the whole or the greater part of something physical (as a machine, tool, building, fabric) is made. Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary, 1976. Materials enter into and become a part of the structure. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968). \u201cSupplies\u201d are things other than labor, which are consumed in, but do not become a physical part of, the structure. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968). Tools do not meet either of these definitions. They are not consumed in, nor do they become a physical part of a structure.\nThe appellant also argues that Part 1, Coverage A, Dwelling Protection excludes coverage in this case, since it excludes \u201cTheft of any property at a dwelling while it is under construction until it is completed and occupied\u201d. The appellant did not argue this to the trial court, and cannot raise it on appeal. Further, even if the appellant had raised this issue before the trial court, this provision is inapplicable, since the exclusion applies only to losses which have occurred at the policyowner\u2019s \u201cresidence premises\u201d.\nAffirmed.\nCorbin, J., dissents.\nThe record does not indicate that any policy was issued on the Bridgewater Lane house, which would provide coverage for this loss.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones \u00e9r Segers, for appellant.",
      "Herdlinger, Jacoway ir Stanley, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jerry D. MARTENS\nCA 81-388\n633 S.W.2d 715\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 2, 1982\nJones \u00e9r Segers, for appellant.\nHerdlinger, Jacoway ir Stanley, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 180
}