{
  "id": 1877659,
  "name": "Alice H. MILLDRUM v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF RHODE ISLAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Milldrum v. Travelers Indemnity Co.",
  "decision_date": "1985-04-15",
  "docket_number": "85-5",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 376"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "688 S.W.2d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 813",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724829
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "817"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/0813-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 2992,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.38648277059564e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7973812372844903
    },
    "sha256": "b2ad4e746ac054ef1be156d282f14088da2a1ee1ed31e34cd9585a8865c272a2",
    "simhash": "1:5d788087fcbcd37c",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alice H. MILLDRUM v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF RHODE ISLAND"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nBy stipulation the only question in this case is one of law: Did Act 900 of 1975 prohibit the appellee, Travelers Indemnity, from inserting in a group disability insurance policy a clause providing that total disability benefits under the policy would be reduced by the amount of Social Security benefits received by the disabled employee? Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709 (Repl. 1980). Our jurisdiction is under Rule 29(l)(c).\nThe unambiguous language of the statute itself unmistakably dictates a negative answer to the question at issue. Act 900 provides that no contract of group disability insurance shall contain any provision for the reduction of benefits because of the existence of \u201cother like insurance.\u201d That phrase is then specifically defined:\nThe term \u201cother like insurance\u201d may include group or blanket disability insurance or group coverage provided by Hospital and Medical Service Corporations, government insurance plans, union welfare plans, employer or employee benefit organizations, or Workmen\u2019s Compensation Insurance or no-fault automobile coverage provided for or required by any statute.\nThe enumeration of various private insurance plans as constituting \u201cother like insurance\u201d by implication excludes from the prohibition governmental social programs such as Social Security benefits. In fact, the General Assembly itself later so construed Act 900, for a later statute not applicable to this case amended the original act by including Social Security benefits in the prohibition. Even then, however, Social Security benefits were not classified as \u201cother like insurance.\u201d Instead, those benefits were placed within a new exclusion of \u201cother such coverage.\u201d Act 702 of 1981; Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709 (Supp. 1983).\nThe appellant argues that Social Security benefits should be included as other like insurance because the emergency clause in Act 900 recites a legislative purpose to prohibit \u201cdenial or reduction of benefits under any contract of group disability insurance.\u201d That statement in itself is too sweeping to have any practical force if treated as an enactment, which it is not. In cases of ambiguity we may refer to the language of the emergency clause to clarify the legislative intent. City of Fort Smith v. Brewer, 255 Ark. 813, 817, 502 S.W.2d 643 (1973). Here, however, there is no ambiguity, for the act itself defined the term \u201cother like insurance.\u201d We do not find in the all-inclusive language of the emergency clause any intent to nullify that definition. The trial judge\u2019s interpretation of the statute was right. The. appellant is not entitled to recover additional amounts under the policy in view of the exclusion of Social Security benefits.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Evans ir Evans, by: James E. Evans, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Jones, Gilbreath & Jones, by: Robert L. Jones, III, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alice H. MILLDRUM v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF RHODE ISLAND\n85-5\n688 S.W.2d 271\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 15, 1985\nEvans ir Evans, by: James E. Evans, Jr., for appellant.\nJones, Gilbreath & Jones, by: Robert L. Jones, III, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 406,
  "last_page_order": 408
}