{
  "id": 1878583,
  "name": "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS v. Mark SHUFFIELD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Insurance v. Shuffield",
  "decision_date": "1984-12-03",
  "docket_number": "84-171",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "284 Ark. 158"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "680 S.W.2d 96"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 S.W.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 Ark. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 Ark. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1597708
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/248/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 Ark. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721735
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/249/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "522 S.W.2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10124605
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/522/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 915",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678972
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0915-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712557
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 4149,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06898838503711993
    },
    "sha256": "3f1f862a50332d67825e00179829d199734664be8a7f561bc332b3e9f58bf097",
    "simhash": "1:ce2147545da45fae",
    "word_count": 702
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:32.164820+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS v. Mark SHUFFIELD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nBy this appeal, Farmers Insurance Company of America challenges the allowance of an attorney\u2019s fee in a dispute with its insured. Farmers insured the dwelling and contents of Mark Shuffield, which were later damaged by fire. While the claim was being processed, Farmers sued Shuffield, alleging he had committed fraud in submitting his proof of loss. Farmers asked that its coverage be declared void.\nShuffield counter-claimed for the fire damage and moved that Farmers\u2019 suit be dismissed, which the trial court declined to do. Prior to trial, and without objection from Farmers, the trial court ordered a reversal of the parties so that Shuffield became the plaintiff and Farmers the defendant. The case was tried in that posture and the jury assessed Shuffield\u2019s damage at $57,809.15, appreciably less than he had alleged. Shuffield moved for a penalty and attorney\u2019s fee for defending Farmers\u2019 suit and the trial court allowed a fee of $7,500 from which Farmers has appealed. We affirm.\nFarmers argues that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3238 (Repl. 1980) providing for penalty and attorney\u2019s fee, is not applicable because we have held the statute must be strictly construed and, hence, not to be applied where the insured fails to recover the amount claimed under the policy. Countryside Casualty Co. v. Grant, 269 Ark. 526, 601 S.W.2d 875 (1980); Hill\u2019s Co-op Gin Co. v. Bullington, 261 Ark. 915, 522 S.W.2d 281 (1977); MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Perrow, 249 Ark. 542, 459 S.W.2d 798 (1970); Smith v. Beal, 248 Ark. 248, 451 S.W.2d 195 (1970); Kansas City Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Baker, 229 Ark. 133, 13 S.W.2d 249 (1958).\nIf that were the only rule of law involved, we could sustain the argument, as the amount recovered by Shuffield fell short of the amount claimed by some $25,000. But Farmers had initiated suit to cancel its policy on an allegation of fraud and Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3239 (Repl. 1980) applies in that situation:\nIn all suits in which the j udgment or decree of a court is against a life, fire, health, accident or liability insurance company, either in a suit by it to cancel or lapse a policy, or to change or alter the terms or conditions thereof in any way that may have the effect of depriving the holder of such policy of any of his rights hereunder, or in a suit for a Declaratory Judgment under such policy or in a suit by the holder of such policy to require such company to reinstate such policy, such company shall also be liable to pay the holder of such policy all reasonable attorney\u2019s fee for the defense or prosecution of said suit, as the case may be . . .\nHere, the fraud issue was not dismissed but was submitted to the jury in conjunction with Shuffield\u2019s claim of entitlement under the policy and, pursuant to the statute, the trial court had the authority to allow an attorney\u2019s fee for defending against Farmers\u2019 attempt to cancel the policy.\nWe find no merit in the argument that the realignment of the parties removed the case from the purview of \u00a7 66-3239. That step may have been taken merely to facilitate the trial process, and Farmers\u2019 acquiescence lends credence to that assumption. The significant fact is that Farmers\u2019 efforts to void its coverage remained an issue in the trial and it was for the trial court to determine whether that warranted an attorney\u2019s fee pursuant to the statute.\nAn additional fee of $1500 is allowed for counsel\u2019s services in connection with this appeal\nAffirmed.\n\u201cIn all cases where loss occurs and the . . . fire .... insurance company . . . liable therefor shall fail to pay the same within the time specified in the policy, after demand made therefor, such [company] shall be liable to pay the holder of such policy . . . in addition to the amount of such loss, twelve percent (12%) damages upon the amount of such loss, together with all reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees for the prosecution and collection of said loss; ...\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, for appellant.",
      "Henry Morgan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS v. Mark SHUFFIELD\n84-171\n680 S.W.2d 96\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 3, 1984\nHuckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, for appellant.\nHenry Morgan, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 186,
  "last_page_order": 188
}