Legal Opinion · Dissent

Natl. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Baker

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 19, 1962No. 5-2608Published

1DissentEd. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice

I dissent because it is my firm conclusion that the Majority, in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court, is doing substantial violence to our long-established rule that any ambiguity in an insurance contract is to be construed most strongly against the company and most liberally in favor of the insured or beneficiary. Some cases so holding are: Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kinney, 206 Ark. 804, 177 S. W. 2d 768; and Halley v. Mutual Benefit Assn., 215 Ark. 907, 223 S. W. 2d 759. I maintain that an application of this rule would result in an. affirmance of the judgment; and I will now undertake…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cooksey v. Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  2. Union Life Ins. Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
  3. Life Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. KinneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  4. Halley v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API