{
  "id": 1889853,
  "name": "Arleva PAYNE v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Payne v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1989-05-01",
  "docket_number": "88-158",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "542",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 540"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "768 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": "263 Ark. 849",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672623
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "854"
        },
        {
          "page": "14"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0849-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 F. Supp. 1125",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3612065
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/342/1125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 F. Supp. 866",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5353907
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/282/0866-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 27-19-601",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 23-89-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 4128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.874,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0179631491195722e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7450642875318213
    },
    "sha256": "b6d717982372e6cda1b36d9b337c6faf20aff57d0dc3ef1b5c3674263aebe1fe",
    "simhash": "1:482355381a0e42cb",
    "word_count": 670
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Arleva PAYNE v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Maddox, Special Justice.\nThis case involves the interpretation of the Arkansas Uninsured Motorist Act, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 23-89-401 \u2014 23-89-405 (1987), and the construction of a contract of insurance. Appellant was a passenger in an automobile being operated by an insured of the appellee, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, Inc., when a collision occurred. There were others injured in the collision in addition to appellant. The insured, Armenda Mathis, had insurance coverage in the amount of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence through the appellee. Appellee settled two claims for a total of $43,000.00, and appellant obtained a judgment against the insured, Armenda Mathis, for $17,500.00. Appellee tendered the sum of $7,000.00 to appellant contending that was the full extent of its liability and coverage amount of $50,000.00 per occurrence. Appellant argued that Armenda Mathis became an uninsured motorist to the extent of the unsatisfied judgment of $10,500.00 and brought suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee.\nThe question presented to this court is whether a motorist who carries at least the minimum amount of insurance required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 27-19-601 \u2014 27-19-621 (1987), becomes an uninsured motorist if the policy limits become exhausted. We believe not.\nAppellant did not purchase nor contract with the appellee to purchase uninsured motorist coverage. Appellee\u2019s insured Armenda Mathis did, however, purchase uninsured motorist coverage. The purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is to protect the appellee\u2019s insured from financially irresponsible motorists. Childers v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 282 F. Supp. 866 (E. D. Ark. 1968). See also Howard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 342 F. Supp. 1125 (W. D. Ark. 1972); First Security Bank v. Doe, 297 Ark. 254, 760 S.W.2d 863 (1988); Aetna Insurance Company v. Smith, 263 Ark. 849, 854, 568 S.W.2d 11, 14 (1978). In appellee\u2019s policy, an uninsured auto is one defined as:\n1. An auto not insured by a liability policy or bond at the time of accident;\n2. An auto which is insured by a liability policy or bond at the time of the accident but the liability limits are less than the minimum amounts required by the financial responsibility law in the state where your policy is issued;\n3. A \u201chit and run\u201d auto, whose owner or driver remains unknown, which has actual physical contact with you or other covered persons, or the auto being occupied. Your injury must be a result of the accident. You must report a \u201chit and run\u201d accident within 24 hours to the police. You must file with us in thirty (30) days a statement about the accident and all damages claimed. The auto you were in at the time of the accident must be available for our inspection;\n4. An auto for which the insuring company becomes insolvent within one year from the date of the accident and is unable to make payment.\nArmenda Mathis was not a financially irresponsible motorist. She had purchased the required coverage and that amount of money was available to the claimants as a group.\nShe was not an uninsured motorist simply because her policy limits were exhausted. There are provisions in the law and in appellee\u2019s contract of insurance to provide relief if a claim is not paid because of the insolvency of an insurance company or if a motorist failed to carry the minimum coverage required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. However, neither of those apply in this case.\nArmenda Mathis was not by definition an uninsured motorist nor was she operating an uninsured automobile, and appellee has no exposure under the uninsured motorist provision of its contract.\nAffirmed.\nGlaze, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Maddox, Special Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary Eubanks & Associates, by: Hugh F. Spinks and James Gerard Schulze, for appellant.",
      "Laser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Bufford & Watts, P.A., by: Ralph R. Wilson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arleva PAYNE v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS, INC.\n88-158\n768 S.W.2d 543\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 1, 1989\nGary Eubanks & Associates, by: Hugh F. Spinks and James Gerard Schulze, for appellant.\nLaser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Bufford & Watts, P.A., by: Ralph R. Wilson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 576,
  "last_page_order": 578
}