{ "id": 6138451, "name": "Amy FOSTER v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Foster v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas", "decision_date": "2000-10-04", "docket_number": "CA 00-228", "first_page": "132", "last_page": "136", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ark. App. 132" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "27 S.W.3d 464" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "315 Ark. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1910480 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/315/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-209", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 Ark. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 377636 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/332/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark. App. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140273 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/49/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ark. App. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138961 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/41/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1684726 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/235/0445-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 417, "char_count": 6795, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.058809067764535e-08, "percentile": 0.5049114832563597 }, "sha256": "b54e4c5ee29119c8f5f0f3d4eb6204f8f3c4877a1e5a532b36e966a058734960", "simhash": "1:063c07e60c8e8ea5", "word_count": 1088 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:32:31.293590+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hart and Griffen, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Amy FOSTER v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John E. JENNINGS, Judge.\nThis is a case involving underin-surance coverage. Appellant Amy Foster was a passenger in her own vehicle that was being driven by Allen Plank when an accident occurred with a vehicle operated by Stephanie Datsun. Appellant was seriously injured in the accident, and Plank was killed. Ms. Datsun was determined to be at fault, and her insurance company paid appellant the maximum liability limit of her policy in the amount of $25,000.00. Appellant also collected $50,000.00 in underinsurance from her own insurance carrier. Claiming that her damages exceeded $125,000.00, appellant filed this suit seeking underinsurance coverage from Plank\u2019s insurer, appellee Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment in agreement that there were no material issues of fact in dispute.\nThe trial court granted appellee\u2019s motion for summary judgment, holding that underinsurance coverage did not extend to appellant under the terms of Plank\u2019s policy. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court\u2019s decision was in error. We disagree and affirm.\nThe resolution of the issue on appeal is dependent on the language used in the insurance policy. In Arkansas, insurance policies are to be interpreted like other contracts. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 235 Ark. 445, 361 S.W.2d 6 (1962). The language in an insurance policy is to be construed in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Sing, 41 Ark. App. 142, 850 S.W.2d 6 (1993). Contracts of insurance should receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the apparent object and intent of the parties in light of their general object and purpose. First Financial Ins. Co. v. Nat\u2019l Indemnity Co., 49 Ark. App. 115, 898 S.W.2d 63 (1995). If there is no ambiguity, and only one reasonable interpretation is possible, it is the duty of the courts to give effect to the plain wording of the policy. See Western World Ins. Co. v. Branch, 332 Ark. 427, 965 S.W.2d 760 (1998).\nAs pertinent to appellant\u2019s argument, the underinsurance motorist endorsement in this case provides as follows:\nCOVERED PERSONS\nWe will provide coverage for:\n1. You or any member of your family residing in your household;\n2. Any person while occupying your auto with your permission.\nCOVERAGE EXCLUSIONS\nThe Underinsured Motorist Coverage does not apply to:\n6. Any auto a covered person is driving or using without the permission of its owner or a person having lawful custody of the auto; or when the auto is stolen or is reasonably known to be stolen.\nThe liability portion of the policy provides:\nCOVERAGE EXTENSIONS\nWhen your policy insures a private passenger auto for Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Coverage, we provide those same coverages for the use of certain other autos.\nWe will provide coverage for:\n1. Use of Other Autos\nCoverage applies to autos that are not owned by you or members of your household or available for regular use by you of any other covered persons. This extension applies only on policies issued to individual persons (not organizations).\nAppellant\u2019s argument that underinsurance coverage applies to her is based on the coverage extension for the use of other autos found in the basic policy provisions, and the coverage exclusion found in the underinsurance endorsement. She argues that under-insurance coverage exists because Plank\u2019s use of other autos was covered and the exclusion applied only to vehicles used without the owner\u2019s permission, which was not lacking in this case. We disagree, because appellant\u2019s argument ignores the specific language found in the underinsurance endorsement.\nAppellant does not claim that she was a member of Plank\u2019s family who resided in his household. In that case, the underinsurance endorsement does extend coverage to \u201cany person while occupying your auto with your permission. The term \u201cyour auto\u201d is defined in the policy as \u201cthe vehicles described on your policy Declaration.\u201d Under the plain and clear language of the underin-surance endorsement, coverage for occupants is limited to those who occupy vehicles specifically named in the policy. Appellant, however, was an occupant of her own vehicle, not one of Plank\u2019s that was listed in the policy declaration. Consequently, the trial court did not err in granting appellee\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nAppellant further argues that Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-209 (Repl. 1999) requires the insurer to extend coverage to her. Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-209 provides in relevant part that:\n(a)(1) No private passenger automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicles in this state shall be delivered or issued in this state or issued as to any private passenger automobile principally garaged in this state unless the insured has the opportunity, which he may reject in writing, to purchase underinsurance motorist coverage.\n(2) After a named insured or applicant for insurance rejects underinsured motorist coverage, the insurer or any of its affiliates shall not be required to notify any insured in any renewal, reinstatement, substitute, amended or replacement policy as to the availability of such coverage.\n(3) The coverage shall enable the insured or the insured\u2019s legal representative to recover from the insurer the amount of damages for bodily injuries to or death of an insured which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of another vehicle whenever the liability insurance limits of such other owner or operator are less than the amount of the damages incurred by the insured.\n(4) Underinsured motorist coverage shall be at least equal to the limits prescribed for bodily injury or death under \u00a7 27-19-605.\n(5) Coverage of the insured pursuant to the 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.\nAn insurer may contract with its insureds upon whatever terms the parties agree so long as the terms are not contrary to a statute or public policy. Pardon v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins, 315 Ark. 537, 868 S.W.2d 468 (1994). The statute in question, however, does not broadly specify any class of persons for coverage other than \u201cthe insured.\u201d Therefore, we cannot conclude that the policy provides less coverage than the statute requires.\nAffirmed.\nHart and Griffen, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "John E. JENNINGS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Grider Law Firm, PLC, by: Murrey L. Grider, for appellant.", "David W. Cahoon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Amy FOSTER v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY of Arkansas\nCA 00-228\n27 S.W.3d 464\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered October 4, 2000\nGrider Law Firm, PLC, by: Murrey L. Grider, for appellant.\nDavid W. Cahoon, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0132-01", "first_page_order": 160, "last_page_order": 164 }