Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commercial Standard Insurance v. Coffman

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 20, 1969No. 5-4787Published

1Dissent

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

I respectfully dissent. I feel that the majority has either ignored or eliminated a clause from the policy of insurance on which this action was brought. This clause is quoted in the majority opinion, in part. Another clause makes full compliance with the terms of the policy a condition precedent to an action upon it.

The parties had a right to iuelude this clause in the contract. Presumably, the form of the policy has been approved by the insurance commissioner. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-3209.

There is no reason why such a clause is against public policy. It does not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Northeast Arkansas Bus Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
  2. Home Indemnity Co. v. Banfield Bros. Packing Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  3. Aetna Insurance Company v. DurbinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
  4. Business Men's Assurance Co. v. SelvidgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  5. National Casualty Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API