{
  "id": 1872695,
  "name": "Hubert LAWSON and MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lawson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1987-03-09",
  "docket_number": "86-252",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "291 Ark. 391"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "725 S.W.2d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879953
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3838,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.894,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7500755835571881
    },
    "sha256": "14c17b77b49134f0ba4a4d7d4ea6c3fc73a439a4c4cdd36a72551b35aebaaba4",
    "simhash": "1:28596856c19d5e82",
    "word_count": 589
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:32.108459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Hubert LAWSON and MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nHubert Lawson was injured in a single vehicle accident while riding on the bed of a truck owned and operated by his father, Donald Lawson. Hubert was the named insured in an automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellant, Mid-Continent Casualty Company. The policy described his automobile as the insured vehicle. Donald was the named insured in an automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellee, State Farm Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. The truck owned and operated by Donald at the time of Hubert\u2019s injuries was described as the insured vehicle in appellee\u2019s policy. Pursuant to the personal injury protection provision in the policy as required by the no-fault statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4014 (Repl. 1980 and Supp. 1985), appellant Mid-Continent paid Hubert\u2019s medical bills and lost wages. Mid-Continent then sued appellee State Farm, contending that under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4016 (Repl. 1980), State Farm\u2019s policy was the applicable policy for Hubert\u2019s no-fault benefits since it was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The trial court granted a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to A.R.C.P. Rule 12(c), and held that the applicable policy for no-fault benefits was issued by the carrier for the injured party rather than by the carrier for the vehicle in which the injury occurred. We affirm.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4014, provides in pertinent part:\nEvery automobile liability insurance policy covering any private passenger motor vehicle . . . shall provide minimum . . . benefits ... to the named insured . . . [and] to passengers injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle . . . without regard to fault. . . .\nUnder the above quoted statement, both carriers were required to provide personal injury protection coverage for Hubert\u2019s damages since Hubert was a \u201cpassenger injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle\u201d under appellee State Farm\u2019s policy and was a \u201cnamed insured . . . injured in a motor vehicle accident\u201d under appellant Mid-Continent\u2019s policy. The quoted statute does not provide which company has the applicable policy. Both parties agree that the answer is found in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4016.\nThe first sentence of \u00a7 66-4016, in the pertinent part, provides:\nThe coverages provided in ... \u00a7 66-4014 . . . shall apply only to occupants of the insured vehicle and to persons struck by the insured vehicle . . . , and to none other.\nThe above sentence limits the persons to whom coverage applies, but does not state which policy is the applicable policy. Appellant contends that language in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Estes, 283 Ark. 61, 670 S.W.2d 451 (1984) provides that the coverage applies to the insured vehicle \u201cand no other.\u201d That case is on a different issue, and we do not consider the language controlling.\nThe answer to the question, which policy is applicable, is found in the second, and final, sentence of \u00a7 66-4016. It provides:\nProvided, however, said coverages shall not be . . . payable, if . . . coverages are afforded to said occupants ... [of the] insured vehicle. . . as a named insured . . . under another valid and collectible automobile insurance policy.\nThis sentence plainly means that when benefits are payable to a named insured, benefits \u201cshall not be . . . payable\u201d as a result of occupying an insured vehicle. Thus, in the event that more than one policy has personal injury protection coverage, the insured\u2019s own policy shall provide primary coverage.\nAffirmed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hardin, Jesson & Dawson, by; Robert M. Honea, for appellants.",
      "Pryor, Robinson & Barry, by; Thomas B. Pryor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hubert LAWSON and MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY\n86-252\n725 S.W.2d 543\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 9, 1987\nHardin, Jesson & Dawson, by; Robert M. Honea, for appellants.\nPryor, Robinson & Barry, by; Thomas B. Pryor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}