{
  "id": 1619243,
  "name": "CALVERT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gerald FRANCIS et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Calvert Fire Insurance v. Francis",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-17",
  "docket_number": "75-316",
  "first_page": "291",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 Ark. 291"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "532 S.W.2d 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 750",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727621
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0750-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3654,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.859,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.353707453119565e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5140216669002711
    },
    "sha256": "3b85bad11bcd9644b21af98b9c1ca79a9c238155d123a718c53ccd2657fcc241",
    "simhash": "1:cabe165279f01690",
    "word_count": 589
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:09.193956+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CALVERT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gerald FRANCIS et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn 1973 the plaintiff, Gerald Francis, a dealer in travel trailers and campers, sustained a fire loss of $27,085.64. Two insurers, Calvert Fire Insurance Company and Lloyd\u2019s of London, had issued policies covering the damaged property. Calvert paid $14,-046.61 of the loss, as its asserted pro rata share, and contended that Lloyd\u2019s was liable for the remaining $13,039.03. Lloyd\u2019s admits liability for only $150, the value of a used unit not insured by Calvert\u2019s policy.\nFrancis brought this action for a declaratory judgment to determine which insurer is liable for the $12,989.03 still at issue. There is no real dispute about the facts. The trial court held, without specifying its reasons, that Calvert is liable. Lloyd\u2019s presents two arguments in support of the trial court\u2019s decision.\nFirst, Lloyd\u2019s argues that the situation is the same as that presented in Ark. Grain Corp. v. Lloyd\u2019s, 240 Ark. 750, 402 S.W. 2d 118 (1966). There one policy had a \u201cpro rata\u201d clause, limiting that insurer to its proportionate part of the total loss if there was other insurance on the property. The second policy had an \u201cexcess\u201d clause, limiting that insurer to liability only for the excess remaining after any other insurance had been paid in full. We sustained the second insurer\u2019s contention that it suffered no liability, because the face amount of the pro rata policy exceeded the total loss.\nThat situation, however, does not obtain here. Calvert\u2019s basic policy does contain a pro rata clause. But a rider, incorporated in the original policy and issued at the same time, contains an excess clause that supersedes the pro rata clause, because the rider provides that it is subject to all terms of the basic policy not inconsistent with the rider. Here there is an inconsistency; so the rider governs. Lloyd\u2019s does not dispute the general rule that where each of two policies contains an excess clause, the clauses are considered to be mutually repugnant and ineffective. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, \u00a7 3912 (rev. ed., 1972); Couch on Insurance 2d, \u00a7 62:79 (1966). That leaves proportionate liability between the two insurers as the common-sense solution, for otherwise the insured might have no protection even though he paid for two policies.\nSecondly, Lloyd\u2019s insists that its policy covers only Francis\u2019s equity in the damaged trailers and campers, over and above an indebtedness financed by Commercial Credit Corporation and secured by a floor-plan arrangement with that creditor. Lloyd\u2019s policy, however, makes no reference whatever to its insured\u2019s equity in the property. To the contrary, it simply insures the vehicles in question in the amount of $25,000, which is more than twelve times the $1,956.06 equity that Francis had in the property. In fact, the only proof tending to support Lloyd\u2019s argument is Gerald Francis\u2019s testimony that he purchased the Lloyd\u2019s policy because he thought that the Calvert policy covered only the amount that was being financed by Commercial Credit under the floor plan. It goes without saying that the insured\u2019s subjective intent in obtaining the Lloyd\u2019s policy does not change the plain language of that contract.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a declaratory judgment holding Lloyd\u2019s liable for $13,039.03, with interest, the statutory 12% penalty, and a $2,500 attorney\u2019s fee.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matthews, Purtle, Osterloh & Weber, by: Gail O. Matthews and Roy Gene Sanders, for appellant.",
      "Hardin & Rickard, by: Gurtis E. Rickard, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CALVERT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gerald FRANCIS et al\n75-316\n532 S.W. 2d 429\nOpinion delivered February 17, 1976\nMatthews, Purtle, Osterloh & Weber, by: Gail O. Matthews and Roy Gene Sanders, for appellant.\nHardin & Rickard, by: Gurtis E. Rickard, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0291-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 321
}