{
  "id": 1742329,
  "name": "Barbara Sue HELMS et al v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Helms v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-27",
  "docket_number": "83-256",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "281 Ark. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "664 S.W.2d 870"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "127 Vt. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        4651929
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/127/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742308
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750255
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721128
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 Ark. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1600564
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/247/0259-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 4963,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.861,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2087887802608355e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5953939785678625
    },
    "sha256": "b233916efe187986ee0f0aa159a15c0ed88f82091ea259d34f7b887a29722980",
    "simhash": "1:ca905c56a4ac7cb6",
    "word_count": 795
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:06.319855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbara Sue HELMS et al v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis case arises from the tragic school bus accident outside Uno, Arkansas, Poinsett County, which killed five faculty members, four students, the driver, and injured the remaining 29 passengers. It is undisputed that at the time of the accident the teachers and the driver were employees of the Jonesboro School District and acting within the scope of their employment. The school district\u2019s insurance company, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, interpleaded $500,000, which was the proceeds of the district\u2019s policy. One of the injured teachers and representatives of two teachers who had been killed claimed part of the proceeds.\nSeveral of the students filed a motion for a declaratory judgment arguing that the teachers were not entitled to any part of the policy proceeds. The district court agreed with the students and found that the teachers\u2019 remedy was either under workers\u2019 compensation coverage or a claim against the driver\u2019s personal estate; but that the driver was not an insured under the policy as against claims by the teachers or their representatives. On appeal the teachers argue that it is against public policy to foreclose their right to the insurance policy proceeds under Act 165 of 1969. That act grants political subdivisions, including school districts, tort immunity, but requires them to carry liability insurance on their motor vehicles. The appellants argue that either the driver of the bus should be considered an \u201cinsured\u201d under the school district\u2019s policy, or that they should be allowed to sue the school district itself.\nArkansas has granted school districts immunity from tort liability. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 12-2901 (Repl. 1979). We have said that that statute is a clear and unambiguous statement of public policy. Sullivan v. Pulaski County, 247 Ark. 259, 445 S.W.2d 94 (1969). It is also required that school districts carry liability insurance on motor vehicles in the minimum amounts prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 12-2903 (Repl. 1979). See also Sturdivant v. City of Farmington, 255 Ark. 415, 500 S.W.2d 769 (1973); Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-1466 (Supp. 1983).\nBecause of the above requirements, the Jonesboro School District was obligated to be insured on its motor vehicles for at least $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. Jonesboro School District insured itself far in excess of the limits and obtained a policy for $300,000/$500,000. The policy has a standard section which provides:\nThe insurance with respect to any person or organization other than the named insured does not apply ... to any employee while engaged in the business of his employer, with respect to bodily injury to another employee of the same employer injured in the course of such employment. . . .\nThat provision clearly precludes suit against one employee by another for part of the policy proceeds. In the \u201cExclusions\u201d portion of the policy is the following provision:\nThis policy does not apply: ... (1) to bodily injury to any employee of the insured. . . .\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 80-1237 (Repl. 1980) provides that officers and employees of public schools shall be covered by workers\u2019 compensation. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 80-1238 (Repl. 1980) provides that the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission will have exclusive jurisdiction of claims by public school employees. In W. M. Bashlin v. Smith, 277 Ark. 406, 643 S.W.2d 526 (1982), we stated that it is without question that, except in certain cases, workers\u2019 compensation is the exclusive remedy between an employer and an employee. We also said that other statutes must yield to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act because it is in the interest of public policy to give that act priority as an exclusive remedy.\nWe see nothing in the insurance policy provisions that violates the legislative intent of Act 165. Act 165 obviously did not intend to make all victims whole; indeed, although the legislature provided for some means of redress in \u00a7 12-2903, the limitations put on those requirements are explicit. Those limits were recently approved in Thompson v. Sanford, 281 Ark. 365, 663 S.W. 2d 932 (1984), and clearly indicate that the legislature did not propose to give one hundred percent redress in every case. Act 165 merely strives to have political subdivisions bear some responsibility for injuries caused by negligence.\nThe teachers and their representatives have a remedy with workers\u2019 compensation, and we see no violation of public policy in denying them the benefit of the proceeds of the school district\u2019s insurance policy. See Medlar v. Aetna Insurance Co., 127 Vt. 337, 248 A.2d 740 (1968).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bill W. Bristow, P.A. and Mooney ir Boone, by: Joe C. Boone, for appellants.",
      "Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon and David Rees, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbara Sue HELMS et al v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY\n83-256\n664 S.W.2d 870\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1984\nBill W. Bristow, P.A. and Mooney ir Boone, by: Joe C. Boone, for appellants.\nBarrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon and David Rees, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 485
}