Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Providential Life Ins. Co. v. Clem

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 23, 1966No. 5-3908Published

1ConcurrenceEd F. McFaddin, Justice

I concur in the result reached by the Majority, but I arrive at such result by a process of reasoning different from that set forth in the Majority Opinion: hence this Concurring Opinion.

The pamphlet which the insurance company caused to be circulated to the appellees herein contained this language: “This policy covers: . . . travel: ... 2. to and from home and school sponsored activities, providing such travel is adult supervised.” (Emphasis my own.) The fact that the policy specified a more detailed kind of adult supervision cannot be seized on by the insurance company as a defense against…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Missouri State Life Insurance v. BarronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
  2. Bankers National Insurance v. HembySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  3. Lawrence v. Providential Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
  4. Southern National Insurance v. PillowSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  5. Chiles v. Mann & MannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API