Smith v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Tom GLAZE, Justice.
The court of appeals certified this case to us on the grounds that there is a perceived conflict in Arkansas insurance case law. The issue certified is whether, when an ambiguity exists in the terms of an insurance policy, that ambiguity is a question of law to be decided by the court or a question of fact for the fact-finder. Our court took jurisdiction under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(b)(2) and (5) (1999).
The parties have stipulated to the relevant facts, agreeing that the primary issues depend upon the construction of clauses in insurance policies appellant Charles E. Smith…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Minerva Enterprises, Inc. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- Southall v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Worthey Ex Rel. WortheySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- Drummond Citizens Insurance v. SergeantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
- Duvall v. Massachusetts Indemnity & Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Elam v. First Unum Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
- Coleman v. Regions BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. FairclothCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Harasyn v. St. Paul Guardian InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
- McGrew v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.