{
  "id": 1604772,
  "name": "AGRICULTURAL GROUP-COMPENSATION SELF-INSURER FUND v. POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Agricultural Group-Compensation Self-Insurer Fund v. Polk County Circuit Court",
  "decision_date": "1998-01-15",
  "docket_number": "97-252",
  "first_page": "24",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "331 Ark. 24"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "958 S.W.2d 531"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 Ark. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1753627
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "99"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/275/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "718 S.W.2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873758
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "869 S.W.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910454
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910517
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443885
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12021853
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907712
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12021646
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 Ark. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        236184
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339-340"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/329/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-404",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 453,
    "char_count": 7465,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.060156596002315196
    },
    "sha256": "37ef31d79f6257c79148ff3d3cc4e3aa70f7547859b76023700b464312a3714b",
    "simhash": "1:18105453016ef5ba",
    "word_count": 1181
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:04:18.346145+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AGRICULTURAL GROUP-COMPENSATION SELF-INSURER FUND v. POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice.\nThis is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by petitioner Agricultural Group-Compensation Self-Insurer Fund (\u201cAgComp SIF\u201d), the workers\u2019 compensation carrier for Wellco Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Wellco Feed Mill. The respondent is the Polk County Circuit Court. We deny the writ.\nOn February 26, 1993, Wellco employee Donald Kenyon was injured while on the job. He filed a claim with the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission against Wellco and AgComp SIF, a trust that provides workers\u2019 compensation benefits to its members as a self-insured fund. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-404 (Repl. 1997). When no further action was taken by any party, the commission dismissed Mr. Kenyon\u2019s claim without prejudice.\nThereafter, Wellco and its individual owner, John E. Wells, filed an action in Polk County Circuit Court against AgComp SIF\u2019s agent, the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, alleging that Mr. Kenyon was an employee of Wellco at the time of his injury and that he was covered by AgComp SIF insurance. Wellco further alleged that the council fraudulently collected premium payments and breached the parties\u2019 contract by refusing to pay compensation to Mr. Kenyon.\nWellco subsequently amended its complaint, substituting AgComp SIF as the sole defendant. Alleging breach of contract, Wellco sought $7,821.28 in damages, representing the amount it had paid for Mr. Kenyon\u2019s medical expenses. Attached to and incorporated in the amended complaint was a copy of the AG-COMP SIF trust agreement. AgComp SIF denied the material allegations of the complaint and amended complaint and pleaded affirmatively that Wellco\u2019s action was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. According to AgComp SIF, the Polk County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to determine Mr. Kenyon\u2019s status as an employee or independent contractor and thus decide the case. AgComp SIF filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to reconsider on this basis, but the circuit court denied both motions. This petition for writ of prohibition followed.\nIn Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith, 329 Ark. 336, 339-340, 947 S.W.2d 382 (1997), we outlined the applicable standard of review in these cases as follows:\nA writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction. Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217, 931 S.W.2d 426 (1996); West Memphis Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Circuit Court, 316 Ark. 290, 871 S.W.2d 368 (1994). When considering the propriety of issuing the writ, this court\u2019s review of jurisdiction is limited to the pleadings. Western Waste Indus. v. Purifoy, 326 Ark. 256, 930 S.W.2d 348 (1996); Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, supra. Where the encroachment on workers\u2019 compensation jurisdiction is clear, a writ of prohibition is warranted. Western Waste Indus v. Purifoy, supra; Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, supra.\nIn considering whether a petition for writ of prohibition lies, jurisdiction is tested on the pleadings, not the proof. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. v. Circuit Court, 317 Ark. 493, 878 S.W.2d 745 (1994); The Wise Company, Inc. v. Clay Circuit, 315 Ark. 333, 869 S.W.2d 6 (1993), reh\u2019g denied 315 Ark. 336-A, 869 S.W.2d 8 (1994).\nAgComp SIF claims that prohibition lies in this case because Wellco\u2019s suit is at odds with the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. See Ark. Code. Ann. \u00a7 11-9-105(a) (Repl. 1996). This provision provides, in pertinent part, that:\nThe rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to the provisions of this chapter, on account of injury or death, shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee, his legal representative, dependents, next of kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer, or any principal, officer, director, stockholder, or partner acting in his capacity as an employer, or prime contractor of the employer, on account of the injury or death, and the negligent acts of a co-employee shall not be imputed to the employer.\nIn asserting that the circuit court is wholly without jurisdiction to hear Wellco\u2019s claim, AgComp SIF relies primarily on two cases \u2014 Cain v. National Union Life Ins. Co., 290 Ark. 240, 718 S.W.2d 244 (1986), and Seawright v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 275 Ark. 96, 627 S.W.2d 557 (1982).\nIn Cain, the claimant filed a complaint against the workers\u2019 compensation carrier and pled that the insurer stipulated that it was liable for all medical expenses but then failed to make payment. The claimant alleged that this failure caused him emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and we affirmed the dismissal on grounds of exclusivity of the workers\u2019 compensation remedy. Thus, Cain involved a claimant\u2019s suit against the carrier, not a suit between an insurer and its insured as in the case before us.\nIn Seawright, an insured brought suit against his carrier for fraud and deceit, bad faith in tort, breach of a fiduciary relationship, and intentional interference with a protected property interest in handling his employee\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation claim. The unique fact in Seawright was that the employer was the husband of the employee-claimant. Fie filed suit while his wife\u2019s claim was pending before the commission, which subsequently found that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we held that the employer\u2019s liability as an employer was discharged when his employee\u2019s claim was barred by limitations. 275 Ark. at 99. As to the liability of the employer as an individual, we said that, because the insurance policy was not in the record, we could not determine that the policy covered any such general, individual liability. Thus, we held that the lower court correctly dismissed the employer-husband\u2019s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. In short, we fail to see how the unique facts in Seawright, a case we decided on appeal, support AgComp SIF\u2019s contention that prohibition is warranted in the instant action.\nTurning to the pleadings, Wellco\u2019s amended complaint alleges that AgComp SIF breached the parties\u2019 trust agreement by refusing to pay for Mr. Kenyon\u2019s injuries. When examining the parties\u2019 trust agreement incorporated in the amended complaint, we observe that it contains two coverages \u2014 Coverage A, entitled \u201cWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u201d coverage, and Coverage B, termed \u201cEmployers\u2019 Liability\u201d coverage. Article VII, paragraph 7.2(c)(4), of the parties\u2019 agreement specifically excludes from Coverage B \u201c [a] ny obligation imposed by a workers\u2019 compensation . . . law or any similar law.\u201d WeEco specificaEy aEeges in its complaint that Mr. Kenyon\u2019s injuries came within Coverage B of the policy, termed \u201cEmployer\u2019s LiabEity.\u201d Thus, it is disputed whether workers\u2019 compensation law is implicated in this case.\nWhen examining the pleadings together with the foregoing authority, we must conclude that AgComp SIF has faEed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it is clearly entitled to the remedy of prohibition. See Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. v. Circuit Court, supra. Accordingly, we deny the writ.\nWrit denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Robert S. Shafer and Guy Alton Wade, for petitioner.",
      "Mary M. Rawlins, for real party in interest Wellco Enters., Inc., d/b/a Wellco Feed Mill."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AGRICULTURAL GROUP-COMPENSATION SELF-INSURER FUND v. POLK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT\n97-252\n958 S.W.2d 531\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 15, 1998\nFriday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Robert S. Shafer and Guy Alton Wade, for petitioner.\nMary M. Rawlins, for real party in interest Wellco Enters., Inc., d/b/a Wellco Feed Mill."
  },
  "file_name": "0024-01",
  "first_page_order": 46,
  "last_page_order": 50
}