Hurst v. Dixon

I write to emphasize my stice, case should not be interpreted to allow a plaintiff to receive a double recovery under the Arkansas Insurance Guarantee Act. I agree that there is insufficient evidence in the record before us to determine whether it involves a “covered claim” under the Mississippi Insurance Guarantee Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 83-23-101 et seq. (1999) (“MIGA”), and whether the jury award is a double recovery absent a set-off of the amount already collected from various sources.

Double recovery is abhorrent to our laws. See Douglas v. Adams Trucking Co., Inc., 345 Ark. 203, 46 S.W.3d…