Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoosier v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided February 19, 2014No. CV-13-524Published

1DissentKenneth S. Hixson, Judge

On the facts of this case I believe the trial court erred in applying California law to the Hoosiers’ underinsured-motorist claim against | fithe appellee. Because Texas law should have been applied, I dissent from the majority’s holding and would reverse and remand.

In this case the parties agree that if California law applies, the Hoosiers are not eligible to receive UIM benefits. However, if Texas law applies, the Hoosiers are entitled to UIM benefits assuming their damages exceed the limits of the tortfeasor’s policy as they claim.

In deciding whether California or Texas law should apply,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. CravenCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  2. Ducharme v. DucharmeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  3. Lincoln Natl. Life Ins. v. ReedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API