{
  "id": 8719372,
  "name": "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Northwestern National Insurance v. American States Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1979-09-10",
  "docket_number": "79-63",
  "first_page": "432",
  "last_page": "434",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 432"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "585 S.W.2d 925"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 894",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650415
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0894-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 Ark. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719028
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/228/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 954",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737926
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0954-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 3708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.871,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.741439444916879e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8319705125665627
    },
    "sha256": "ef7df86c1840d5d6a080dd8f90e569ec257365b9c371bd772a122ad8e5b0011b",
    "simhash": "1:526d4c5d8932a0e7",
    "word_count": 583
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ-"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nUnder our 1973 No-Fault Insurance Act an insurance company which makes a no-fault payment to its own insured is entitled to a lien upon, and a right of reimbursement from, any tort recovery obtained by its insured, less the insurance company\u2019s proportionate part of the costs of collection. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4019 (Supp. 1977). In this dispute between two insurance companies Northwestern, which had a lien under the statute, contends in effect that it was entitled to a full recovery without paying its part of the costs of collection. The circuit judge, sitting as a jury, rejected that contention, and we agree.\nNorthwestern, the plaintiff, issued an automobile liability policy to Walter and Lucille Stacey. The policy contained the no-fault medical and income benefits specified by the statute. \u00a7 66-4014. The Staceys were injured in a collision between their car and one driven by Bennie Ivory. Northwestern paid the Staceys $6,425.78 under the policy.\nLater on the Staceys employed James C. Cole as their attorney and brought suit against Ivory and his wife in Hot Spring county. The appellee, American States, was Ivory\u2019s liability insurer. American States settled the case by paying the full amount of its policy, $28,500, with the check being made payable jointly to the Staceys and Cole. Northwestern had notified Cole of its claim. Cole\u2019s fee was 30% of the amount recovered. Cole sent Northwestern a check for $4,-498.05, the amount of Northwestern\u2019s subrogation claim less Cole\u2019s 30% fee. Cole made the same 30% deduction from the Stacey\u2019s share of the money.\nBefore the settlement Northwestern\u2019s representative, Richard Greenlee, had discussed its claim with American States\u2019 representative, William Plummer. Greenlee testified that in a telephone conversation Plummer promised to protect Northwestern\u2019s subrogation interests. Plummer denied having made such a promise. The trial judge found, in rendering his decision, that there was no oral contract by American States to protect Northwestern\u2019s claim free of any expense to it.\nRegardless of the oral agreement, Northwestern argues that American States had notice of Northwestern\u2019s lien and should have protected it in any of several suggested ways. One suggestion is that American States should have included Northwestern as a joint payee of the settlement check, \u201cso that it could not be cashed except on terms satisfactory to the Staceys, their attorney and Northwestern.\u201d\nWe do not see that Northwestern has any basis for complaint. Subrogation is governed by equitable principles. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Hammett, 237 Ark. 954, 377 S.W. 2d 811 (1964). Under the statute Northwestern\u2019s claim was burdened with its proportionate part of the costs of collection. \u00a7 66-4019, supra. There can be no doubt that costs of collection include reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees. Maxcy v. John F. Beasley Constr. Co., 228 Ark. 253, 306 S.W. 2d 849 (1957); Winfrey & Carlile v. JVickles, 223 Ark. 894, 270 S.W. 2d 923 (1954). Northwestern makes no contention that Cole\u2019s fee of 30% is unreasonable. Consequently, even if American States had included Northwestern as a payee of the settlement check, Northwestern would still have had no equitable claim to its share of the money without first paying its part of Cole\u2019s fee. That precise result was actually reached; so Northwestern\u2019s argument is without merit.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hickman, JJ-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Lowe & Hamlin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY\n79-63\n585 S.W. 2d 925\nOpinion delivered September 10, 1979\n(Division I)\nLaser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellant.\nLowe & Hamlin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0432-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 460
}