{
  "id": 1453596,
  "name": "Roger D. FLEMENS and Nancy Flemens v. Glen D. HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Flemens v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1995-02-27",
  "docket_number": "94-245",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "662",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "319 Ark. 659"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "893 S.W.2d 783"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 539",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914631
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0539-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912745
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443728
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907792
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443873
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0207-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 5508,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.883,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.301981745586105e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3877617961510497
    },
    "sha256": "308bd035d267d0536b918f511a11c3209a9a4b13b1579bd43962d18e77247cf8",
    "simhash": "1:1dfac753680d1171",
    "word_count": 907
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:57.133828+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze and Roaf, JJ., dissent, would reach the merits of the appeal."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Roger D. FLEMENS and Nancy Flemens v. Glen D. HARRIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert L. Brown, Justice.\nThe appellants in this case, Roger D. Flemens and Nancy Flemens, appeal an order granting summary judgment to appellee Glen D. Harris because the Flemenses\u2019 complaint for negligence was filed outside of the time of the applicable statute of limitations. Because the record on appeal fails to reflect any disposition of the complaint filed by the Flemenses against a party defendant, Shelter Life Insurance Company, we dismiss the appeal for lack of finality under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b).\nIn the summer of 1988, Glen Harris was an insurance agent for Shelter Life in the town of Dierks. He had passed his state licensure examination in June 1988. On August 8,1988, Harris sold Roger Flemens several insurance policies on behalf of Shelter Life, including a disability insurance policy. Roger Flemens\u2019s wife, Nancy Flemens, was the named beneficiary under that policy which, upon her husband\u2019s disability, would pay her $1,000 a month.\nOn December 15, 1988, Roger Flemens had a car accident in which he experienced back injuries. He applied for disability benefits under his policy with Shelter Life and initially received one payment in the amount of $233.33 by check dated February 7, 1989, for his disability during the last two weeks in December 1988. On March 21, 1989, Shelter Life then discovered what it described as a \u201cproblem\u201d with the policy and stopped paying benefits. Shelter Life contended that Roger Flemens had misrepresented his annual earned income on the application form as being too high. On December 13, 1991, the Flemenses filed a complaint against Harris and Shelter Life and alleged that Harris was negligent in completing the insurance application for Roger Flemens which provided Shelter Life with \u201can excuse\u201d not to pay benefits. The complaint further alleged that Shelter Life had failed and refused to pay the benefits due and owing, despite demand.\nThe parties on appeal have advised this court that Shelter Life was dismissed from this litigation due to settlement, but there is no order in the record of this appeal showing that Shelter Life was dismissed as a party defendant. An Abstractor\u2019s Note was included in the Flemenses\u2019 brief in this appeal to the effect that Shelter Life \u201cwas dismissed early on in this litigation.\u201d Appellee Harris confirmed that fact in his brief and added that Shelter Life \u201cwas dismissed after a settlement and compromise which required a payment from Shelter to the Appellants of $125,000.\u201d The only reference in the record to Shelter Life\u2019s status, however, is the following statement in Harris\u2019s brief before the trial court in support of his motion for summary judgment:\nIt is first important to ask the court to note that the only issue remaining and pertaining to the parties in this action, Roger Flemens, Nancy Flemens and Glen Harris, is an action for contended negligence on the part of Defendant Harris in the handling of Plaintiff\u2019s application for disability insurance. The independent action, which Plaintiff Roger Flemens has filed against Shelter Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Pike County, Arkansas, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas has been settled and compromised between the parties.\nBut that reference in the record and those statements in the parties\u2019 briefs on appeal fall short of a court order which specifically disposes of the claim against Shelter Life.\nAt oral argument of this matter, counsel for the parties stipulated that Shelter Life had indeed been dismissed from the lawsuit, and counsel for appellee Harris informed the court that his firm had also been counsel for Shelter Life in the trial court. Nevertheless, we decline to reach the merits of this appeal because there is no court order dismissing the complaint against Shelter Life. Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 317 Ark. 207, 876 S.W.2d 581 (1994); Martin v. National Bank of Commerce, 316 Ark. 83, 870 S.W.2d 738 (1994). In Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, supra, the record on appeal did not reflect what had happened regarding some 20 defendants. We declined in that case to rely on the recollections of counsel for both the appellant and appellees at oral argument about what had happened to those 20 defendants in the trial court, and we dismissed the appeal. We consider the C\u00f3rtese decision to be precedent for the case before us. Consistency demands that we require more than the recollections of counsel in the case before us.\nNor is there a certification in the trial court\u2019s order which would permit a piecemeal-appeal under Rule 54(b). Id. Failure to dispose of all claims or all of the parties is a jurisdictional matter which we are obligated to raise on our own. Maroney v. City of Malvern, 317 Ark. 177, 876 S.W.2d 585 (1994). Parties may not consent or stipulate for the purpose of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in a particular court. Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Estate of Hogan, 314 Ark. 19, 858 S.W.2d 105 (1993); Waddle v. Sargent, 313 Ark. 539, 855 S.W.2d 919 (1993).\n-We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.\nGlaze and Roaf, JJ., dissent, would reach the merits of the appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert L. Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wright, Chaney, Berry & Danie, P.A., by: Don P. Chaney, for appellants.",
      "Wood, Smith, Schnipper & Clay, by: Philip M. Clay and Lynn Williams, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roger D. FLEMENS and Nancy Flemens v. Glen D. HARRIS\n94-245\n893 S.W.2d 783\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1995\n[Rehearing denied March 27, 1995.]\nWright, Chaney, Berry & Danie, P.A., by: Don P. Chaney, for appellants.\nWood, Smith, Schnipper & Clay, by: Philip M. Clay and Lynn Williams, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 693,
  "last_page_order": 696
}