{
  "id": 6141734,
  "name": "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Dorothy LINDSEY, Executrix of the Estate of Mary Ellen Thielemier, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey",
  "decision_date": "1996-08-21",
  "docket_number": "CA 95-817",
  "first_page": "390",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ark. App. 390"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "926 S.W.2d 850"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 23-89-209",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "amended by Act 1180 of 1993"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449541
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        },
        {
          "page": "16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 4635,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3338045963297474
    },
    "sha256": "a764638de974ccf2787da766a43a1681dbdd2dfa6d246a6f270adc94c673236d",
    "simhash": "1:18a45f0c6da77181",
    "word_count": 726
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:29.533878+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mayfield and Robbins, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Dorothy LINDSEY, Executrix of the Estate of Mary Ellen Thielemier, Deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WENDELL L. Griffen, Judge.\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (\u201cappellant\u201d or \u201cState Farm\u201d) appeals from the decision by the Randolph County Circuit Court granting summary judgment to Dorothy Lindsey (\u201cappellee\u201d or \u201cLindsey\u201d) for insurance benefits under both the uninsured and the underinsured provisions of an automobile policy. Lindsey\u2019s mother was the insured under the policy and was killed in an automobile accident by a uninsured tortfeasor. State Farm paid the $25,000 policy limit under the uninsured motorist provision. Lindsey, as the executrix of her mother\u2019s estate, brought this action to also recover under the underinsured provision of the same policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in her favor after both parties filed summary judgment motions. State Farm contends that this case is controlled by State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beavers, 321 Ark. 292, 901 S.W.2d 13 (1995), a decision issued by the supreme court while this appeal was pending. We agree that Beavers is dispositive. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with the instruction that summary judgment be entered in favor of State Farm.\nAs an initial matter, we note that appellant argues in its jurisdictional statement that jurisdiction may properly lie with the supreme court because this case involves the interpretation and construction of an act of the General Assembly. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 1-2 (a) (3). However, we need not interpret Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 23-89-209 (Supp. 1995) and 23-89-401 \u2014 405 (Repl. 1992) (the underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage acts, respectively). Beavers has done that for us. Hence, this case requires that we simply apply the relevant case law. Thus, it is properly within our jurisdiction. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 1-2(a).\nThe facts in Beavers are virtually identical to the instant case. The insured was struck by an uninsured motorist. The State Farm auto policy involved appeared to contain the same uninsured-underinsured provisions. The accident occurred before the 1993 amendment to the Arkansas underinsured motorist statute. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-209 (Repl. 1992) (amended by Act 1180 of 1993). The only differences between Beavers and the instant case \u2014 none of which are relevant \u2014 are that State Farm in Beavers refused to pay benefits under either the uninsured or the underinsured provisions (State Farm paid the policy limit under the uninsured provision here), and the case went to trial before a jury rather than, as here, being decided on motions for summary judgment.\nIn a well-researched opinion that relied on law review articles, treatises, and case law from other jurisdictions, the supreme court stated:\n[I]n following the simple rule of considering this policy\u2019s language, including its definition and exclusions, together with the language of the statute, which clearly refers to the tortfeasor\u2019s insurance coverage, we must conclude that underinsured coverage does not apply when the insured is struck by an uninsured motorist.\n321 Ark. at 297, 901 S.W.2d at 16.\nThe automobile policy at issue states in clear terms: \u201can \u00ab\u00abdefinsured motor vehicle does not include a land motor vehicle . . . defined as an \u00ab\u00abinsured motor vehicle in your policy.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the underinsured motorist statute provides: \u201cCoverage of the insured pursuant to underinsured motorist coverage shall not be reduced by the tortfeasor\u2019s insurance coverage, except to the extent that the injured party would receive compensation in excess of his damages.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-209 (Repl. 1992) (emphasis added). We believe that both the Arkansas General Assembly and State Farm int\u00e9nded for uninsured and underinsured coverages to be distinct concepts. In particular, the statute implies that underinsured coverage is not triggered unless the tortfeasor has insurance in the first instance. To allow uninsured and underinsured coverage to apply to the same accident \u2014 as appellee would have us hold \u2014 would permit a double recovery in the face of clear statutory and policy language to the contrary.\nWe reverse the summary judgment in favor of appellee. We also remand to the circuit court with the instruction that summary judgment be entered in favor of State Farm.\nReversed and remanded.\nMayfield and Robbins, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WENDELL L. Griffen, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Snellgrove, Laser, Langley, Lovett & Culpepper, by: Todd Williams, for appellant.",
      "Riffel, King & Smith, by: Jim King, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Dorothy LINDSEY, Executrix of the Estate of Mary Ellen Thielemier, Deceased\nCA 95-817\n926 S.W.2d 850\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division III\nOpinion delivered August 21, 1996\nSnellgrove, Laser, Langley, Lovett & Culpepper, by: Todd Williams, for appellant.\nRiffel, King & Smith, by: Jim King, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0390-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 418
}