Providential Life Ins. Co. v. Clem
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- Missouri State Life Insurance v. BarronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Bankers National Insurance v. HembySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Lawrence v. Providential Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- Southern National Insurance v. PillowSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Chiles v. Mann & MannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.