{
  "id": 1910480,
  "name": "James PARDON, Sr. and Imalene Pardon and James Pardon, Jr., Individually, and James Pardon, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of David R. Pardon, Deceased v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pardon v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1994-01-18",
  "docket_number": "93-660",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "315 Ark. 537"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "868 S.W.2d 468"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889853
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 849",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672623
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0849-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 884",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672663
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0884-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-403",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "804 F.2d 1018",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1662896
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/804/1018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 5139,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.878,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5255201711735586e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9237637020536719
    },
    "sha256": "59e07846f04ea170201542a42e31610535b54122f80b5ba97db8349f88584706",
    "simhash": "1:5951c6b5140ef68c",
    "word_count": 813
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:39:34.144281+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James PARDON, Sr. and Imalene Pardon and James Pardon, Jr., Individually, and James Pardon, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of David R. Pardon, Deceased v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nOn.the evening of April 22, 1989, David Pardon, Christopher Thomas, and David Smith were riding in Pardon\u2019s 1988 Ford pickup when it overturned, killing Pardon and Thomas. At the time of the accident, the truck was insured by the appellee Southern Farm Bureau Casualty, Inc. for both liability and uninsured motorist coverages. For purposes of this litigation as it involves summary judgment, the parties agree that Thomas was driving and was uninsured at the time of this tragic accident.\nUnder Pardon\u2019s liability coverage, Southern Farm was liable to pay for bodily injury for which Pardon was legally obligated to pay due to an accident arising out of the use of his truck. Pardon, however, was excluded from liability coverage since he was owner of the truck. Under the uninsured motorist provision of Pardon\u2019s policy, Southern Farm was liable to pay for bodily injury damages to which Pardon was entitled to collect from an owner or driver of an uninsured automobile. The policy defined an uninsured automobile as one not insured by a liability policy at the time of the accident.\nPardon\u2019s estate brought suit against Southern Farm and alleged that, because Thomas was uninsured and Pardon was excluded by the terms of his liability policy, Pardon (his estate) was entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his policy. Southern Farm answered and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Pardon\u2019s truck was an insured auto since it was covered under the liability portion of Pardon\u2019s policy and therefore the uninsured motorist coverage provision was inapplicable. The court granted Southern Farm summary judgment, and Pardon\u2019s estate appeals from that decision.\nA similar case to the one posed here was considered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Davis v. Bean, 804 F.2d 1018 (1986). There, Conrad Bean and his step-son, Ty Davis, were in an accident when Bean\u2019s truck slid off an icy road. Bean was driving at the time and his truck was insured under a liability policy which included uninsured motorist coverage. Davis was excluded under the terms of Bean\u2019s liability policy because Davis was a member of Bean\u2019s household. Davis, however, sought recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of Bean\u2019s policy, claiming that the terms in those provisions excluding an owner\u2019s and insured\u2019s vehicle was void (1) as an illegal limitation mandated by the Arkansas uninsured motorist statute, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-89-403, 404 (1987) (previously codified as Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-4003 (Supp. 1985), and (2) as against Arkansas public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court, adopting the district court\u2019s reasoning, rejected Davis\u2019s argument stating that uninsured motorist coverage should apply only where injury is the result of a collision involving the insured\u2019s car and a car owned by an uninsured motorist, and that uninsured motorist coverage should not apply where the accident involves the insured\u2019s car only.\nWe find the Bean case persuasive for several reasons. First, \u00a7 23-89-404, which provides for uninsured motorist property damage coverage, specifically indicates that such coverage applies when the collision in question involves an operator of another vehicle. See \u00a7 23-89-404(a)(2). This being statutorily contemplated, we cannot say that a policy requiring another vehicle to trigger the policy\u2019s uninsured motorist coverage violates this state\u2019s public policy. Second, in construing Arkansas\u2019s uninsured motorist provisions, this court has also held that the burden of showing the \u201cother vehicle\u201d is uninsured is on the plaintiff. Home Ins. Co. v. Harwell, 263 Ark. 884, 568 S.W.2d 17 (1978). Clearly, this court has presumed a vehicle other than the plaintiff-insured\u2019s must be involved when the insured is entitled to collect under uninsured motorist coverage. Third, it is also settled Arkansas law that an insurer may contract with its insured upon whatever terms the parties may agree upon which are not contrary to statute or public policy. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Smith, 263 Ark. 849, 568 S.W.2d 11 (1978). Here, under Pardon\u2019s policy, an uninsured auto is \u201can auto not insured by a liability policy at the time of the accident.\u201d Thus, because Pardon\u2019s truck was insured by a liability policy, his uninsured motorist coverage by its very terms was inapplicable. Finally, we reiterate that the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is to protect the insured from financially irresponsible motorists. Payne v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. of Arkansas, Inc., 298 Ark. 540, 768 S.W.2d 543 (1989). The construction the trial court has given Pardon\u2019s policy certainly meets this purpose.\nFor the reasons given above, we affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bridewell & Bridewell, by: Laurie A. Bridewell, for appellants.",
      "Wright, Chaney, Berry & Daniel, P.A., by: William G. Wright, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James PARDON, Sr. and Imalene Pardon and James Pardon, Jr., Individually, and James Pardon, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of David R. Pardon, Deceased v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY\n93-660\n868 S.W.2d 468\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 18, 1994\nBridewell & Bridewell, by: Laurie A. Bridewell, for appellants.\nWright, Chaney, Berry & Daniel, P.A., by: William G. Wright, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 572
}