Legal Opinion · Dissent

Corn v. Farmers Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 7, 2013No. CV-13-42Published

1Dissent

CLIFF HOOFMAN,

Justice, dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm this case. I agree with the Corns that complete exhaustion of all tortfeasors’ liability-insurance policies should no longer be required after the enactment of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2008 (CJRA) (Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-55-101 et. seq.), which abolished joint and several liability. Our holding in Birchfield v. Nationwide Ins., 817 Ark. 38, 875 S.W.2d 502 (1994), was consistent with the purpose behind the underin-sured motorist (UIM) statute under the law in effect at that time because…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hill v. American Family Mutual InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Birchfield v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  3. Colonial Penn Insurance v. SaltiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  4. Stafford v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API