Legal Opinion · Concurrence

St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Inc. v. Irons

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 7, 2001No. 00-1478Published

1ConcurrenceTom Glaze, Justice

St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Inc. argues the federal district court decision of Underwriters at Loyds, London v. Pike, 812 F. Supp. 146 (W.D. Ark. 1993), presents a situation identical to the one now before us, and our court should follow it. Here, as was the case in Pike, the insurer argues that the insured obtained two separate valued policies on the same property, and because the insurable interest is the same in both policies, the insured is able to receive a double recovery or “windfall,” which exceeds the total value of the insurable interest. St. Paul urges there is an inherent risk in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tedford v. Security State Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
  2. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. PikeDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1993
  3. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Kenneth Pike Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, of Gentry Cornerstone BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API