{
  "id": 1678962,
  "name": "The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1977-03-21",
  "docket_number": "76-303",
  "first_page": "326",
  "last_page": "328",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 Ark. 326"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "547 S.W.2d 757"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "295 Minn. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        312231
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/295/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 A. 2d 480",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.J. Super, 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        294723
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj-super/97/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.Y.S. 2d 1018",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "401 S.W. 2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10128404
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/401/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 A. 2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 Conn. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        514402
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/159/0252-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3597,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.887,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0450435067879876e-07,
      "percentile": 0.907539783207438
    },
    "sha256": "e97290264c21315b807421a7854db84088a7d378acab9a17577d9fcbda4b2110",
    "simhash": "1:fc9ec7b202b0e711",
    "word_count": 560
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:25.982646+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Fogleman, J., not participating.",
      "Byrd, J., concurs.",
      "George Rose Smith, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe issue in this case involves interpretation of a homeowners insurance policy.\nThe homeowner, James Waggener, was sued, in a separate case which is still pending, for negligently entrusting a minibike to a minor child who, while operating the bike on a neighborhood sidewalk, injured the minor child of Delores Cunningham. Cunningham sued Waggener and other parties, but the only allegation of negligence against Waggener is that he was wrong in permitting a minor child to use the minibike.\nWaggener has an excess indemnity policy with the appellant, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and a homeowners policy with American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, the appellee. American Manufacturers has refused to defend Waggener in the lawsuit against him. Aetna brought this suit against American Manufacturers for a declaration that American Manufacturers is obligated to defend Waggener and to pay any judgment to the limits of their policy. The lower court held that American Manufacturers\u2019 homeowner\u2019s policy excluded this type of accident and Aetna brings this appeal.\nThe issue on appeal is interpretation of the American Manufacturers\u2019 policy issued Waggener and primarily concerns a clause in the insurance policy which excludes liability for certain types of accidents.\nThe theory of Aetna\u2019s lawsuit is that American Manufacturers\u2019 policy has a broad coverage clause of insurance. The clause reads as follows:\nThis company agrees to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence.\nAn \u201coccurrence\u201d is defined as an accident which would result in injury to a person or property. American Manufacturers admits that the coverage clause is broad but defends this lawsuit on the basis of an exclusionary clause in the policy. According to the clause th re is no coverage for an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of:\nAny recreational motor vehicle owned by any insured, if the bodily injury or property damage occurs away from the residence premises; . . .\nWe agree with the trial court\u2019s finding that American Manufacturers is not required to defend Waggener. The accident occurred off the premises and undoubtedly from the use of the minibike. Aetna\u2019s argument that the \u201cnegligent entrustment\u201d, rather than the \u201cuse\u201d of the minibike, is the negligent act ignores the clear language of the exclusionary clause. LaBonte v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 159 Conn. 252, 268 A. 2d 663 (1970), Federal Insurance Company v. Forristall, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 401 S.W. 2d 285 (1966).\nWe are not unmindful that several other states have reached the opposite conclusion. See Lalomia v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Company, 312 N.Y.S. 2d 1018 (1970), McDonald v. The Home Insurance Company, 97 N.J. Super, 501, 235 A. 2d 480 (1967), and Republic Vanguard Insurance Company v. Buehl, 295 Minn. 327, 204 N.W. 2d 426 (1973).\nThis vehicle accident, off the premises, is best covered by general liability insurance or motor vehicle insurance available for a premium that considers the primary risk involved.\nAffirmed.\nFogleman, J., not participating.\nByrd, J., concurs.\nGeorge Rose Smith, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hale, Fogleman & Rogers, for appellant.",
      "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al\n76-303\n547 S.W. 2d 757\nOpinion delivered March 21, 1977\n(In Banc)\nHale, Fogleman & Rogers, for appellant.\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0326-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 370
}