{
  "id": 1727382,
  "name": "Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. Droddy",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pacific Insurance v. Droddy",
  "decision_date": "1966-03-28",
  "docket_number": "5-3824",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "240 Ark. 535"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "400 S.W.2d 673"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "198 Ark. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1459729
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/198/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 Ark. 1016",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725794
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/228/1016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 Ark. 939",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1681301
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/236/0939-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5392,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.283159945918396e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47909916755764526
    },
    "sha256": "883aed2b0939c93f525cc8f41e8f9b704b61c5a9589dba7850e00da3e710189d",
    "simhash": "1:b3f36cce0c63fe83",
    "word_count": 958
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:15.698686+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. Droddy"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ed. P. McFaddin, Justice.\nThe question here posed is that of venue for an action by a sub-contractor against the surety on a contractor\u2019s performance bond for public-works. See Act No. 351 of 1953, as amended by Act No. 209 of 1957 Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 51-632 et seq. [Supp. 1965]). See Sweetser Const. Co. v. Newman Bros., 236 Ark. 939, 371 S. W. 2d 515.\nIn February 1964 it. L. Brewer Construction Company of Camden, in Ouachita County, obtained the contract for water and sewer improvements in the City of Waldo, in Columbia County; and executed a bond for $68,000.00, under the provisions of Act No. 351 of 1953. Pacific Insurance Company of New York (appellant) was the surety on the bond, which was duly recorded in Columbia County. The Construction Company subcontracted a portion of the work to J. Elmer Droddy of El Dorado, in Union County.\nIn December 1964 appellee Droddy filed the present action in the Union Circuit Court against the Pacific Insurance Company, alleging that the City of Waldo had made full payment to R. L. Brewer Construction Company of the contract price, and that R. L. Brewer Construction Company had failed to pay Droddy the full amount due him. The Pacific Insurance Company unsuccessfully objected to the venue of the Union Circuit Court; and that issue of venue is the point now before us.\nThus, we must decide where is the proper venue for the action on a performance bond executed under Act No. 351 of 1953; that is, as between (a) the county wherein the bond was filed\u2014Columbia County in this case; or (b) the county of the residence of the principal contractor\u2014Ouachita County, in this case; or (c) the county of the residence of the plaintiff beneficiary of the bond \u2014Union County, in this case. Unfortunately, the Act No. 351 contains no provision as to venue; and the general rule regarding venue of actions on public work bonds, as stated in 43 Am. Jur. 951, \u201cPublic Works and Contracts\u201d \u00a7 206, is: \u201cIn the absence of any special statutory provision the jurisdiction of an action on the bond of a surety of the public contractor is determined by-rules governing\u2019 the jurisdiction of ordinary civil actions for damages.\u201d See also 92 C.J.S. p. 704, \u201cVenue\u201d \u00a7 16.'\nOur problem, here, is very much like that which confronted us in Concrete, Inc. v. Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., 228 Ark. 1016, 311 S. W. 2d 770. That case was an. action under the \u201cUnfair Practices Act\u201d (Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 70-301 et seq. [Repl. 1957]), which contained no provision for venne; and we were forced to apply the general statute for venue in actions against corporations. In the case at bar, the action is against a foreign insurance company; but the appellant contends that this is not an action on an insurance policy, as such, but an action against a surety on a bond.\nThe question of venue has given us much concern; and it is hoped that the Legislature will see fit to definitely fix venue in actions by beneficiaries (as is the appellee) on performance bonds under the Act No. 351. Certainly the Legislature, in enacting- the Act No. 351, intended for venue to be somewhere. It was possibly thought at that time that venue would be determined by our holding in American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. McKee, 198 Ark. 601, 130 S. W. 2d 12, to be either in the county of the residence of the plaintiff, or the county in which the bond was filed. But, after the Act No. 351 of 1953 was adopted, the Legislature adopted Act No. 148 of 1959, which repealed a vast number of statutes and changed the statute relied on as a venue statute in American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. McKee (supra).\nAs best we can find, the Act No. 148 of 1959 contains only one section regarding venue in actions against insurance companies, and that is found in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3234 (Repl. 1966), the germane portion of which reads: \u201cAn action brought in this State by or in behalf of the insured or beneficiary against an insurer as to a loss occurring or benefits or rights provided under an insurance policy .... shall be brought in either (a) the county in which the loss occurred. . . .or (b) the county of the insured\u2019s residence at the time of the loss.\u201d In order to make the quoted language determinative of venue in Union County in the case at bar, we would have to hold that this was an action on an insurance policy and that Droddy was both the insured and the beneficiary under the policy.\nIf the foregoing section on venue should not govern an action like this one, then the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-608 (Repl. 1962) would have to govern, because the defendant is a foreign corporation and that section says: \u201cAn action.....against a non-resident of this State or a foreign corporation may be brought in any county in which there may be property of or debts owing to the defendant.\u201d\nWe cannot say that the Trial Court was in error in holding that the venue on the bond in this ease was in Union County.\nAffirmed.\nThe Union Circuit Court denied the plea of venue; the cause was tried to a jury; and a verdict was rendered for Droddy for $1500.00 plus penalty, interest, and attorney fees; but the appellant preserved its objections to venue, and that is the Question here before us.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ed. P. McFaddin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Grumpier & O\u2019Connor, Richard II. Mays, for appellant.",
      "Brown, Compton & Prewett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. Droddy\n5-3824\n400 S. W. 2d 673\nOpinion delivered March 28, 1966\nGrumpier & O\u2019Connor, Richard II. Mays, for appellant.\nBrown, Compton & Prewett, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 559,
  "last_page_order": 562
}