{
  "id": 1902442,
  "name": "Clifford McANALLY and Staci Douglas v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "McAnally v. Farm Bureau Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-28",
  "docket_number": "91-73",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 Ark. 65"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "817 S.W.2d 204"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "304 Ark. 671",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881046
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0671-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900926
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Rick's Pro Drive 'N Ski Shop, Inc. v. Jennings-Lemmon, 304 Ark. 671, 803 S.W.2d 934 (1991)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Rick's Pro Drive 'N Ski Shop, Inc. v. Jennings-Lemmon, 304 Ark. 671, 803 S.W.2d 934 (1991)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 Ark. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1884260
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/302/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "811 S.W.2d 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Rickenbacker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 302 Ark. 119, 788 S.W.2d 474 (1990)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900963
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Rickenbacker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 302 Ark. 119, 788 S.W.2d 474 (1990)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0318-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 5887,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.436489347448442
    },
    "sha256": "67e061d4ec35fe1afe72998bd81f6cf341b8403ef0b74b28f816cb4c7014a48c",
    "simhash": "1:46ed86660ea43307",
    "word_count": 975
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:45:32.876763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Clifford McANALLY and Staci Douglas v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThis case involves whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Farm Bureau Insurance Company (Farm Bureau).\nThe underlying facts of this case show that on October 29, 1988, Lloyd Douglas was driving a car owned by his step-father, Jeff Baker, who was a passenger in the car at the time of the incident. Both men were intoxicated.\nMessrs. Douglas and Baker encountered the appellants, Clifford McAnally and Staci Douglas (Lloyd Douglas\u2019s estranged wife), in Ms. Douglas\u2019s car. The Douglas\u2019s daughter was in the car with Mr. McAnally and Ms. Douglas. Mr. Douglas got out of Mr. Baker\u2019s car and approached his wife\u2019s car. He then ostensibly attempted to slap his wife and remove his daughter from his wife\u2019s car, at which time Ms. Douglas and Mr. McAnally drove away. Mr. Douglas returned to Mr. Baker\u2019s car and tried to overtake them in a high-speed chase during which time Mr. Douglas fired a pistol. Ms. Douglas\u2019s car left the road and overturned, resulting in injury to the occupants.\nFarm Bureau filed a declaratory judgment action against Messrs. Baker and Douglas, Mr. McAnally, Ms. Douglas, and other parties who were in Ms. Douglas\u2019s car at the time of this incident seeking a declaration that insurance coverage did not exist because its policy specifically excluded damage caused by intentional acts.\nMr. Baker filed a motion for summary judgment, after which Farm Bureau and Mr. McAnally and Ms. Douglas also filed motions for summary judgment. All of these motions were denied by the trial court because disputed issues of fact existed. Mr. Douglas and the other named parties failed to file an answer, and a default judgment was entered against them.\nFarm Bureau then amended its complaint to allege that the occurrence did not arise out of the \u201cownership, maintenance, or use\u201d of Mr. Baker\u2019s automobile, as required by the insurance policy, and added theories of joint venture and agency to impute Mr. Douglas\u2019s actions to Ms. Baker.\nAgain, Farm Bureau and Mr. Baker filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Mr. Baker\u2019s motion for summary judgment, but granted that of Farm Bureau stating:\n* * * *\n4. The intentional act of Lloyd Daniel Douglas in pointing a gun at the vehicle driven by Duree Hodges and firing said gun at or near said vehicle was the proximate cause of said vehicle leaving the road and overturning as a result of which some of the occupants of said vehicle were allegedly injured.\n5. Said occurrence did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the insured vehicle.\n6. Therefore, there exists no coverage for Baker for this occurrence, under Plaintiffs policy of insurance issued to Baker, and there is no duty on Plaintiff to defend Baker . . . nor is there any obligation on the part of Plaintiff to pay any judgment rendered against Baker therein.\n* * * *\nMr. McAnally and Ms. Douglas appeal and assert three points of error: 1) that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau, 2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment in favor of them and Mr. Baker, and 3) that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Farm Bureau as to a disputed issue of fact.\nThe appellant\u2019s first and third arguments on appeal both assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau.\nIn Register v. Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc., 306 Ark. 318, 811 S.W.2d 315 (1991) (citing Rickenbacker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 302 Ark. 119, 788 S.W.2d 474 (1990)), we noted that Ark. R. Civ. P. 56 provides that summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, in determining whether there is an issue of fact, the proof is viewed most, favorably to the party resisting the motion, with all doubts and inferences resolved against the moving party. The burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact rests with the party moving for summary judgment.\nIn this case, the issue is whether the actions of Mr. Baker, the named insured under Farm Bureau\u2019s insurance policy, preclude coverage under his policy. Farm Bureau\u2019s policy apparently provides that it covers, \u201cbodily injury and property damage . . . caused by an accident\u201d but excludes \u201cbodily injury or property damage caused by [the expected or unexpected results of] intentional acts.\u201d\nEssentially, Farm Bureau attempts to preclude coverage by asserting imputed liability and agency theories against Mr. Baker; Mr. Baker, however, refutes these claims and argues negligent entrustment of his automobile to Mr. Douglas. Also, whether this incident and resulting injuries occurred as the result of the discharge of the gun during the chase or the manner in which the automobile was driven is another matter contested by the parties. Consequently, there are genuine issues of material fact still in dispute, and the trial court\u2019s granting of summary judgment was in error.\nWith regard to the appellants\u2019 argument that the trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment in their favor, we will not consider the matter since the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not subject to review on appeal, even after a trial on the merits. McElroy v. Grisham, 306 Ark. 4, 810 S.W.2d 933 (1991) (citing Rick\u2019s Pro Drive 'N Ski Shop, Inc. v. Jennings-Lemmon, 304 Ark. 671, 803 S.W.2d 934 (1991)).\nReversed and remanded.\nGlaze, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jim Petty and Art Anderson, for appellants.",
      "Laser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Buff or d & Watts P.A., by: Sam Laser and Brian Allen Brown, for appellee"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clifford McANALLY and Staci Douglas v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY\n91-73\n817 S.W.2d 204\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 28, 1991\nJim Petty and Art Anderson, for appellants.\nLaser, Sharp, Mayes, Wilson, Buff or d & Watts P.A., by: Sam Laser and Brian Allen Brown, for appellee"
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 91,
  "last_page_order": 94
}