Corn v. Farmers Insurance Co.
2013 Ark. 444
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Opal and L.B. Corn sought UIM coverage from Farmers after a March 3, 2008 accident involving debris from a contractor’s truck.
- Gafford’s insurer paid policy limits to Opal and L.B.; Farmers consented to those settlements.
- Corns pursued UIM with Farmers and later settled with Eden for less than Eden’s policy limits; Farmers refused UIM benefits.
- Corns claimed Birchfield required exhaustion of all tortfeasor policies; Eden settlement should trigger UIM only after partial exhaustion.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Farmers, holding exhaustion of all applicable policies was required; court affirmed.
- Majority notes post-CJRA changes and indicates urging legislative revisitation while upholding Birchfield-based exhaustion rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complete exhaustion of all tortfeasor policies is required for UIM under Birchfield despite CJRA. | Corns argue CJRA abolishes joint-and-several liability; exhaustion not required. | Farmers contends Birchfield remains controlling; exhaustion required. | Birchfield controls; complete exhaustion required. |
| Meaning of the word ‘any’ in policy language for triggering UIM coverage. | ‘Any’ means all policies exhausted; not triggered by one exhausted policy. | ‘Any’ means all applicable policies; not ambiguous. | Policy language unambiguous; all policies must be exhausted before UIM is triggered. |
| Whether Farmers’ consent to Gafford’s settlement waived its right to object to Eden settlement and UIM remittance. | Consent to Gafford settlement implies Farmers should have objected to Eden settlement to preserve UIM rights. | No authority supports waiver by consent; arguments not persuasive. | No waiver; question resolved on policy and statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. Nationwide Ins., 317 Ark. 38 (1994) (reaffirms exhaustion of all tortfeasors’ policies before UIM benefits)
- Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mullimos, 336 Ark. 335 (1999) (UIM trigger requires knowing damages and paid liability benefits)
- Castaneda v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 357 Ark. 345 (2004) (insurance terms must be clear; ambiguous terms construed in insured’s favor)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 2011 Ark. 157 (2011) (de novo review of questions of law)