{
  "id": 1629849,
  "name": "Faye SMITH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-06",
  "docket_number": "5-5787",
  "first_page": "57",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 Ark. 57"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "477 S.W.2d 186"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E. 2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2110489,
        2110522
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/245/0383-01",
        "/sc/245/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705619
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597817
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0415-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3002,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.283144447523125e-07,
      "percentile": 0.618101093924781
    },
    "sha256": "ac9291cc10db97b49003351676bc02611c52ad8403d9b6430cb55891fc0e044d",
    "simhash": "1:0f1c5d796929b6c3",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:02.058798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Faye SMITH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant and her husband had previously secured separate judgments against appellee\u2019s insured, Loleta Goble. See Smith v. Goble, 248 Ark. 415, 452 S. W. 2d 336 (1970). The appellee insurer paid the entire policy limits of $10,000 to appellant\u2019s husband and $7,641.60 to appellant for her injuries. However, the appellee refused to pay her any part of the additional $5,000 which the jury awarded her for loss of consortium. This resulted in the present action. The trial court, sitting as a jury, found the issues in favor of the appellee and dismissed appellant\u2019s complaint. For reversal the appellant asserts that the recovery for loss of consortium was expressly included within the terms of the policy. Appellant argues that loss of consortium constitutes damages within the purview of Goble\u2019s policy clause which provides coverage for damages resulting from * * (a) bolily injury sustained by other persons * * * \u201d and that the company bound itself to pay her for \u201c* * * damages for care and loss of services\u201d resulting from personal injuries. Appellant asserts that since consortium is a compensable element of damages arising from bodily injuries, citing Missouri Pac. Trans. Co. v. Miller, 227 Ark. 351, 299 S. W. 2d 41 (1957), her $5,000 consortium damages are included as coverage by the terms \u201ccare and loss of services.\u201d\nThe appellee does not take issue with this assertion. However, appellee correctly relies upon the provision in the Goble policy which limits appellee\u2019s liability. This provision reads:\n\u201cLimits of Liability \u2014 * * * Coverage A. The limit of liability stated in the declarations as applicable to \u2018each person\u2019 is the limit of the company\u2019s liability for all damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident. * * *\u201d\nThis provision clearly and unambiguously limits the recovery for damages for bodily injuries sustained by any one person in any one accident. In the case at bar the limit of liability is $10,000. We agree with the trial court that since appellant\u2019s husband was paid the full amount of the policy limits for his bodily injuries, the appellant cannot recover her derivative claim for loss of consortium in excess of the $10,000 policy limits. See Sheffield v. American Indemnity Co., 140 S. E. 2d 787 (S. C. 1965); 7 Am. Jur. 2d Automobile Insurance \u00a7 195; 13 ALR 3d Insurance \u2014 Limits of Liability \u00a7 4 p. 1234.\nThe appellee having fulfilled its obligation by paying the full limit of its liability, it necessarily follows that we find no merit in appellant\u2019s contention that appellee is estopped to deny the full amount is not due and owing; nor can appellant complain that appellee was negligent in its failure to settle appellant\u2019s claim within the policy limits.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lightle, Tedder & Hannah, for appellant.",
      "Cockrill, Lasser, McGehee, Sharp if Boswell; By: Frank L. Watson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Faye SMITH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.\n5-5787\n477 S.W. 2d 186\nOpinion delivered March 6, 1972\nLightle, Tedder & Hannah, for appellant.\nCockrill, Lasser, McGehee, Sharp if Boswell; By: Frank L. Watson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0057-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 82
}