{ "id": 1891429, "name": "Clarence TORAN v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.", "name_abbreviation": "Toran v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.", "decision_date": "1989-01-17", "docket_number": "88-183", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "421", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "297 Ark. 415" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "764 S.W.2d 40" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "223 Ark. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1650430 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/223/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485087 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 Ark. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1876544 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/287/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878587 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 Ark. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717334 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/288/0063-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 418, "char_count": 9871, "ocr_confidence": 0.885, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.6889678065052887e-07, "percentile": 0.8273455325001573 }, "sha256": "2858c3737a9bf82494dd8b9b77dbcd9f9506ab456c6b292836a466e6aff221c9", "simhash": "1:b7ce7eb45d190db4", "word_count": 1582 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Clarence TORAN v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that appellant Clarence Toran is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from litigating certain issues and claims made below against the appellee, Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company (Provident). We find that the trial court\u2019s decision was wrong. Accordingly, we reverse its judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nOn July 1,1974, Provident issued and delivered a long-term disability policy insuring Toran and other employees of Federal Compress & Warehouse Company. On November 2, 1978, Toran sustained serious injuries in a truck accident.\nIn August 1980 he became totally and permanently disabled for purposes of the policy, and on September 9, 1981, was discharged from his employment because he was physically unable to perform his job duties.\nAfter applying for Social Security disability benefits, Toran began receiving disability payments in May of 1982. Shortly thereafter, Provident reduced his policy benefits of $576.66 per month to $149.76 per month pursuant to a policy provision permitting Provident to reduce Toran\u2019s policy benefits by the amount of Social Security benefits to which he or his dependents are entitled as a result of his disability.\nThereafter, Toran sued Provident for the total sum of the reduction, contending that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709, as amended in 1979, precluded reduction of his policy benefits. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Toran, and Provident appealed this decision.\nIn Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Toran, 288 Ark. 63, 702 S.W.2d 10 (1986), we reversed the trial court\u2019s decision. In doing so, we construed \u00a7 66-3709 to permit Provident to reduce Toran\u2019s policy benefits by the amount of Social Security benefits to which he was entitled as a result of his disability, resulting in a net payment to Toran of $149.76.\nIn June of 1986, Provident reduced Toran\u2019s policy benefits from $149.76 to $50.00 per month. On September 1, 1986, Provident elected to pay him no further benefits, claiming an overpayment because of Social Security benefits applied for by his illegitimate children and paid directly to them.\nIn May of 1987, Toran filed suit against Provident alleging essentially as follows:\n(1) To construe Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709 to allow an insurance carrier to deny or reduce benefits because of the insured\u2019s receipt of like benefits is contrary to the legislative intent of the statute and public policy;\n(2) Section 66-3709 prohibits Provident from reducing an insured\u2019s policy benefits by the amount of Social Security disability benefits received by him;\n(3) Section 66-3709 prohibits Provident from reducing an insured\u2019s policy benefits by the amount of Social Security disability payments applied for and paid to his illegitimate children;\n(4) Provident\u2019s policy terms and \u00a7 66-3709, as amended, prohibit reduction of insured\u2019s benefits to an amount less than $50.00 per month; and\n(5) By collecting premiums to insure against total disability by its insureds with knowledge that the great majority of employee insureds who are rendered \u201ctotally and permanently disabled\u201d will receive Social Security disability benefits, Provident in reality is providing nominal coverage or in some cases, no coverage, except for a $50.00 per month minimum provided for in the policy. This action violates public policy.\nBased upon these allegations, Toran prayed for all benefits wrongfully reduced by Provident.\nThereafter, Provident filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Toran\u2019s action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court granted this motion, finding that the suit was precluded by res judicata and that the complaint failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. From this order, Toran appeals.\nToran first asserts that the trial court erred in finding he is precluded by res judicata from litigating his claim for policy benefits withheld by Provident because of Social Security benefits paid to his illegitimate children. This contention has merit.\nAs we recognized in Smith v. Roane, 284 Ark. 568, 683 S.W.2d 935 (1985), res judicata and collateral estoppel are separate concepts. Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. Restatement (Second) of Judgments \u00a7 19 (1982). See also Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Protection Dist., 287 Ark. 268, 697 S.W.2d 916 (1985); Fish v. McLeod, 206 Ark. 142, 174 S.W.2d 236 (1943). Furthermore, res judicata bars not only the relitigation of claims which were actually litigated in the first suit, but also those which could have been litigated. Bailey, supra; Seaboard Finance Co. v. Wright, Admx., 223 Ark. 351, 266 S.W.2d 70 (1954). In contrast, the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of law or fact actually litigated by the parties in the first suit. Smith, supra; Restatement (Second) of Judgments \u00a7 27 (1982).\nToran\u2019s claim concerning policy b\u00e9nefits withheld by Provident because of Social Security benefits paid to Toran\u2019s illegitimate children was not litigated in the first action. In addition, it could not have been litigated in that Provident did not reduce Toran\u2019s policy benefits by the amount of Social Security benefits paid to his illegitimate children until after the first action was decided. Therefore, res judicata does not preclude Toran from litigating this matter. We reverse on this point.\nToran also argues that the trial court erred in finding that he is precluded by res judicata from litigating his claim for policy benefits denied him by Provident\u2019s reduction of his benefits from $50.00 per month to zero. We agree.\nUnder the heading, \u201cReductions applicable to Basic Benefit Amount,\u201d the insurance policy in question provides in part that the benefit amount shall be reduced by \u201cany periodic cash payment to which the Employee, or a dependent of the Employee is entitled as a result of the Employee\u2019s disability.\u201d In addition, it provides that \u201c[i]n no event, however, will the employee\u2019s basic benefit amount be reduced to an amount less than $50.00.\u201d\nToran is not precluded from litigating his claim for policy benefits wrongfully denied by Provident\u2019s reduction of his benefits from $50.00 to zero per month. Not only was this claim not adjudicated in the first suit, it could not have been litigated since Provident did not reduce Toran\u2019s policy benefits below $50.00 until after the first case was decided.\nFinally, Toran argues that the trial court erred in finding that he is precluded by res judicata from arguing that Provident\u2019s policy reduction provisions operate contrary to good public policy and are, therefore, void. We agree with Toran in part.\nIn May of 1982, Provident reduced Toran\u2019s policy benefit to $149.76 by subtracting the amount of Social Security benefits to which he was entitled ($426.90) from the amount of benefits due under the policy ($576.66). Toran then sued Provident for the total sum of the reduction contending that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709 precluded reduction of his policy benefits. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Toran, and Provident appealed the decision. This court reversed the decision of the trial court, holding that such a reduction was not contrary to \u00a7 66-3709. See Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., supra. Thereafter, Provident reduced Toran\u2019s policy benefits to $50.00 per month and later elected to pay him no benefits, claiming an overpayment because of Social Security benefits applied for by his illegitimate children and paid directly to them.\nSince Toran litigated in the initial lawsuit his claim for the amount of policy benefits wrongfully denied by Provident\u2019s reduction of his benefits from $546.66 to $149.76 due to Social Security benefits received by him, he is barred by res judicata from litigating this claim in the present action. Consequently, he is precluded from making public policy arguments in support of this claim.\nToran is not barred by res judicata from litigating his claim for policy benefits denied him by Provident\u2019s further reduction of his benefits from $149.76 to $50.00 in that this claim was not litigated and could not have been litigated in the first action. Furthermore, he is not barred by collateral estoppel from contending that Provident\u2019s policy reduction provisions operate contrary to public policy in support of this claim in that this issue was not adjudicated in the first action. However, he is precluded by collateral estoppel from asserting that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3709 prohibits reduction of his policy benefits by the amount of Social Security benefits to which he is entitled as a result of his disability in support of this or any other claim since this issue was adjudicated and determined in Provident, supra.\nIn addition, Toran is not barred by res judicata from pursuing his claim for policy benefits denied him by Provident\u2019s reduction of his policy benefits from $50.00 to zero due to Social Security benefits received by his illegitimate children in that this claim was not litigated and could not have been litigated in the first suit. Moreover, he is not precluded from asserting that the policy reduction provisions in question contravene public policy in support of this claim.\nReversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kincaid, Home & Trumbo, by: David Home, for appellant.", "Daily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield, by: Wyman R. Wade, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Clarence TORAN v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.\n88-183\n764 S.W.2d 40\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1989\nKincaid, Home & Trumbo, by: David Home, for appellant.\nDaily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield, by: Wyman R. Wade, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 451, "last_page_order": 457 }