{
  "id": 50301,
  "name": "Mary R. SCHULTZ and Robert M. Schultz v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schultz v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1997-04-07",
  "docket_number": "96-1075",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "73",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "328 Ark. 64"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "940 S.W.2d 871"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12022847
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922758
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0172-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 627,
    "char_count": 15487,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.796484210511942e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4569511581563249
    },
    "sha256": "bc534af774d8e35b4ad3c45d892b788a6e6682294fab60825e8a6e4cefebfa86",
    "simhash": "1:86f2ed1c6e1c86dd",
    "word_count": 2452
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:32.867281+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brown, J. not particpating.",
      "Special Justice David B. Vandergriff joins in the opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Mary R. SCHULTZ and Robert M. Schultz v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.\nAt issue in this property-insurance case is whether the insurer effectively cancelled a vacancy permit issued to the insured. The appellants argue that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the appellee. The appellants also argue that the trial court misconstrued Ark. R. Civ. P. 56. We find no error and affirm.\nOn April 20, 1995, a building owned by the appellants, Mary and Robert Schultz, was damaged by fire. Prior to that date, the appellee, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, Inc., issued a policy of insurance on the property. Farm Bureau denied coverage, and filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Marion County chancery court seeking declaratory relief to that effect.\nAmong other things, Farm Bureau asserted that the building was an unoccupied dwelling, and thus fell under the policy\u2019s exclusion providing that \u201cwe will not be liable for any loss if the dwelling is vacant or unoccupied by you or a tenant for a period of sixty consecutive days.\u201d The Schultzes in turn moved for partial summary judgment, maintaining that an endorsement to the policy, \u201cVacancy or Unoccupancy Permit FB-24,\u201d prohibited Farm Bureau from using the policy\u2019s vacancy provision to deny coverage.\nThe endorsement provided as follows:\nVACANCY OR UNOCCUPANCY PERMIT FB-24\n(Annual Renewable Coverage)\nPermission is granted for the dwelling described in your latest declaration, and shown with this endorsement number, to remain vacant or unoccupied. (The terms \u201cvacant\u201d and \u201cunoccupied\u201d are defined in your policy booklet.)\nAs a condition for this coverage, during periods of vacancy or unoccupancy, the dwelling must be kept closed and secured to prevent the trespassing or entry of unauthorized persons. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.\nDuring times of vacancy or unoccupancy, there will be an increased chance of loss. Our charge for this increase of risk is $15.00 for each dwelling with endorsement FB-24. Such charge is non-refundable and becomes fully earned upon payment.\nThis permit is continuous until cancelled or until your policy expires, whichever occurs first.\nEffective Date 1/16/90\nAttached to and Forming Part of Policy Number F491524\n(Underscoring in original.) The Schultzes also submitted a change in policy form executed in 1990 by Farm Bureau\u2019s agent and Mary Schultz, which form requested the vacancy permit.\nFarm Bureau responded and filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment. Farm Bureau\u2019s position was that the endorsement had been \u201cdeleted\u201d from the policy in November of 1994. As evidence supporting this proposition, Farm Bureau submitted the policy\u2019s declaration page for the policy period covering October 18, 1993, and October 18, 1994. In the \u201cschedule\u201d section of the declaration page, under the heading \u201cDESCRIPTION AND OCCUPANCY,\u201d was the description, \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING. FB24 APPLIES.\u201d Farm Bureau also submitted the declaration page for the policy period covering November 1, 1994, to October 18, 1995. On this declaration page, the corresponding description merely provided \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING.\u201d\nFarm Bureau additionally submitted two affidavits. The first was from Dwight Shipman, the Farm Bureau agency manager for Marion County, who stated that \u201con or about November 1, 1994, through conversations with the Schultzes and my office, the FB24 vacancy or unoccupancy permit was deleted from this policy, and to the best of my information and belief, a new declarations sheet was delivered to the Schultzes without the FB24 permit.\u201d The second affidavit was from Gayle Holmes, the manager of the Farm Bureau policy services department. She stated that on November 1, 1994, Farm Bureau received a \u201cchange request form\u201d from its Marion County office regarding the Schultzes\u2019 policy. According to Holmes, this form requested the deletion of the FB-24 endorsement and a correction of the spelling of Mary Schultz\u2019s name on the declaration page. Additionally, she stated that \u201ca new declarations page deleting the FB24 endorsement to the insurance policy in question was mailed to the insureds\u201d on November 2, 1994, and that the Schultzes were charged a lower premium because of the deletion of the endorsement.\nFarm Bureau also attached excerpts of the sworn statement and deposition testimony of Mary Schultz. She stated that prior to the fire, the last time the budding had been rented out may have been \u201ca couple of years ago.\u201d Her son stayed in the building some the prior summer, and she also stated that about two weeks before the fire, some fisherman stayed there while fishing in some tournaments. When asked, \u201cWas this something that it was somebody you knew, and you just loaned the place to them for a day or two?\u201d Schultz answered, \u201cYes.\u201d\nThe Schultzes filed a reply to Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment, essentially arguing that a general condition of the policy required a separate, formal cancellation notice to effectively cancel the endorsement. They argued that the declarations page which omitted the reference to \u201cFB-24\u201d was \u201cnot tantamount to a cancellation, standing alone.\u201d The Schultzes further alleged that \u201cany evidence based on oral agreement canceling the permit would be inadmissible, leaving only a question of law the only issue.\u201d\nAt the hearing on the Schultzes\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment and Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment, the following documents were submitted as joint exhibits without objection:\n1. Change-in-policy form executed in 1994 by Farm Bureau\u2019s agent and Mary Schultz, which form requested that FB-24 be deleted.\n2. The insurance policy\u2019s general conditions entitled \u201cVacancy or Unoccupancy\u201d and \u201cChanges.\u201d\n3. The policy\u2019s declaration page for the policy period covering October 18, 1993 and October 18, 1994.\n4. The vacancy or unoccupancy permit FB-24.\n5. The policy\u2019s declaration page for the policy period covering November 1, 1994, to October 18, 1995.\nOn June 6, 1996, the trial court entered an order granting Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment, and denying the Schultz\u2019s partial motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the vacancy permit, though valid, had been effectively cancelled under the terms of the policy. The chancellor noted Shipman\u2019s testimony that the Schultzes had requested that the endorsement be deleted. The chancellor ultimately found that the vacancy permit no longer applied to the Schultz\u2019s policy because it was not noted on their last declaration page.\nOn June 12, 1996, the Schultzes filed a request for additional findings. One of their enumerated \u201crequests\u201d concerned Ship-man\u2019s affidavit testimony submitted with Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The Schultzes denied that they had ever been in Shipman\u2019s office or that they had ever discussed the issue of the endorsement\u2019s deletion with him. They attached an affidavit executed by both of them containing their testimony substantiating this assertion. The Schultzes also requested that the chanceEor \u201cmake a specific ruling on this question\u201d:\nIs ARCP 56, (the rule on summary judgment procedure) to be construed as permitting the affidavit of a party to the proceeding to be classified as \u201cundisputed\u201d in determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact?\nFinaEy, the Schultzes requested that the trial court enter an order finding that its June 6 order was not final for purposes of appeal, pending its decision on the request for additional findings.\nOn July 1, 1996, the trial court entered a second order. In this order, the chanceEor found that Shipman\u2019s affidavit did not \u201crecite personal knowledge of the facts which were stated,\u201d thus the court modified its prior order to delete the foEowing:\nThe affidavit of Dwight Shipman says that \u201c. . . about November 1, 1994, through conversations with the Schultzes in my office, the FB24 vacancy or unoccupancy permit was deleted from this policy . . . .\u201d\nThe trial court nonetheless held that even without considering Shipman\u2019s affidavit, Farm Bureau had effectively canceEed the FB-24 endorsement. The chanceEor also held that a party\u2019s affidavit was not per se \u201cdisputed\u201d under Ark. R. Civ. P. 56, and further declined to address the finality issue.\nThe Schultzes now bring the present appeal, and raise two points of error. The first is whether the trial court erroneously granted Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment. The second is whether the trial court misconstrued Ark. R. Civ. P. 56.\nCANCELLATION OF VACANCY PERMIT\nFor their first point, the Schultzes argue that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment for Farm Bureau on the issue of coverage. Essentially, this point revolves around whether Farm Bureau effectively cancelled the vacancy permit.\nSummary judgment is a remedy that should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be litigated. Shackelford v. Patterson, 327 Ark. 172, 936 S.W.2d 748 (1997). The burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact is upon the movant, and all proof submitted must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party resisting the motion. Id. Any doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party. Id. The burden in a summary-judgment proceeding is on the moving party and cannot be shifted when there is no offer of proof on a controverted issue. Id. When the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement, the respondent must meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a material fact. Id.\nThe Schultzes rely on one of the policy\u2019s general conditions, entitled \u201cChanges.\u201d This provision provides as follows:\nA waiver or change of any provision of this policy must be in writing by us and be shown on an endorsement or successive declaration page to be valid. If a premium adjustment is necessary, we will make the adjustment as of the effective date of the change.\nAccording to the Schultzes, the mere deletion of the reference to \u201cFB-24\u201d on the November 1, 1994, declarations page was not sufficient to comply with this requirement.\nBy its express terms, the vacancy permit was \u201ccontinuous until cancelled or until [the] policy expires, whichever occurs first.\u201d This language is plain and unambiguous. Therefore, Farm Bureau must have effectively cancelled the endorsement in order to reinstate the policy\u2019s exclusion for vacancies of sixty days. When an otherwise valid endorsement is issued, it becomes a part of the insurance contract as if it were actually incorporated therein. See 2 Couch on Insurance 3d \u00a718:17 (1996). Thus, the general condition governing changes to the policy would appear applicable to the vacancy permit as well.\nAs stated above, any changes to the terms of the policy must be in writing by Farm Bureau and must be shown on an endorsement or subsequent declaration page. The record reflects that in 1990, a change-in-policy form was executed on the Schultzes\u2019 policy. The signatures of both Mary Schultz and a Farm Bureau agent appear at the bottom of this form. On this form was the handwritten notation, \u201cPlease add vacant permit. This dwelling is not rented at this time.\u201d On the row, \u201cCHANGE APPLICABLE FORM NO(S) TO:\u201d was the handwritten notation \u201cFB24.\u201d This form also showed that the annual premium for the policy was $273.00. On the Schultzes\u2019 declaration page issued in 1993, under the column, \u201cDESCRIPTION AND OCCUPANCY,\u201d the description \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING. FB24 APPLIES,\u201d was conspicuously noted. Under the heading \u201cSubject to Attached Form No.(s),\u201d the sheet listed \u201cFB24.\u201d The annual premium shown was $288.00. Thus, by its express terms, the 1993 declaration page required that the insured property be a tenant-occupied dwelling, but with the additional qualification that \u201cFB-24\u201d applied to the property.\nIn October of 1994, another change-in-policy form was executed on the Schultzes\u2019 policy, and sent from the Marion County Farm Bureau office to the Little Rock office. The signatures of both Mary Schultz and a Farm Bureau agent appear on this form. The description of the insured property provided on this form was \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING. FB24 APPLIES.\u201d However, also on this form was the handwritten notation, \u201cDelete FB24.\u201d\nA new declaration page was issued on November 1, 1994. Under the column, \u201cDESCRIPTION AND OCCUPANCY,\u201d the description merely provided \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING.\u201d Likewise, the space for \u201cSubject to Attached Form No.(s)\u201d omitted any reference to the FB-24 vacancy permit. The annual premium reflected for the policy was $216.00.\nIn their response to Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment, the Schultzes offered no affidavits or other evidence to suggest that they did not request that the vacancy permit be can-celled or deleted. Nonetheless, they argued that the policy\u2019s general condition regarding \u201cChanges\u201d required that Farm Bureau notify them of the change with a separate form, separate and distinct from the mere omission contained on the declaration page. We agree with the Schultzes that the general condition\u2019s use of the article \u201cand\u201d suggests that two writings must reflect any change in the policy. Not only must a waiver or change be shown in an \u201cendorsement or successive declaration page,\u201d it must also be noted \u201cin writing by us [Farm Bureau].\u201d Any other reading of the condition would render the \u201cwriting\u201d requirement superfluous, given that an endorsement or declaration page would always be a \u201cwriting.\u201d\nThat being said, we find that the above-described documents satisfied the policy\u2019s general condition regarding changes. The change was noted in writing by Farm Bureau. Namely, on the 1994 change-in-policy form executed by Farm Bureau\u2019s agent and Mary Schultz, which clearly noted the requested change, \u201cDelete FB24,\u201d in writing. Moreover, the cancellation was reflected on the 1994 declaration page, which conspicuously described coverage \u201cON THE TENANT OCCUPIED DWELLING.\u201d Without the prior \u201cFB-24\u201d qualification, this description clearly references the policy\u2019s general exclusion for unoccupied dwellings. Additionally, the evidence suggests that the Schultzes\u2019 premium was decreased following the cancellation of the vacancy permit. Thus, we affirm, finding that the trial court correctly granted Farm Bureau\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nCONSTRUCTION OF ARK. R. CIV. P. 56.\nThe Schultzes, for their second point, make a two-pronged argument. The first is that the trial court misconstrued Ark. R. Civ. P. 56 in determining that there were no disputed facts based on Farm Bureau\u2019s affidavits. The second is that the trial court erred in considering Shipman\u2019s affidavit because it contained inadmissible evidence. We need not reach the merits of these arguments because, as discussed above, the trial court had an adequate basis for granting summary judgment to Farm Bureau without considering Farm Bureau\u2019s affidavits.\nAffirmed.\nBrown, J. not particpating.\nSpecial Justice David B. Vandergriff joins in the opinion.\nThe Schultzes also purport to appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. We do not review such rulings. See Ball v. Foehner, 326 Ark. 409, 931 S.W.2d 142 (1996).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Danuser and Griffin Smith, for appellants.",
      "Davis, Cox & Wright, PLC, by: Don A. Taylor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary R. SCHULTZ and Robert M. Schultz v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY\n96-1075\n940 S.W.2d 871\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 7, 1997\nRoy Danuser and Griffin Smith, for appellants.\nDavis, Cox & Wright, PLC, by: Don A. Taylor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 90,
  "last_page_order": 99
}