Hoosier v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
433 S.W.3d 259
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- A motor-vehicle collision occurred on September 10, 2009, in Arkansas; Adams was at fault and carried $50,000 liability limits.
- Hoosier, insured under AAA's California policy with $50,000 UM/UIM limits, sustained about $200,000 in medical expenses.
- Plaintiffs sought underinsured-motorist benefits under their AAA policy; AAA moved for summary judgment.
- Issue presented: whether California or Texas law applies to interpret the underinsured-motorist provisions.
- Policy declarations showed California issuance and a June 2009 move to Texas, but the policy language stated declarations, contract, and endorsements complete the policy.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for AAA; Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, applying California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state's law governs the UIM provisions interpretation? | Hoosier argues Texas law should apply due to relocation and policy changes. | AAA argues California law applies as the contract was made in California and the law of the contract’s location governs. | California law applies; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Messinger, 232 Cal.App.3d 508 (Cal. App. 1991) (underinsurance coverage applies only when tortfeasor is underinsured)
- Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Reed, 234 Ark. 640 (Ark. 1962) (validity and interpretation of policy governed by law of the state where contract was made)
- Craven v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 89 S.W.3d 369 (Ark. App. 2002) (significant-contacts analysis for insurance contracts; Arkansas choice-of-law logic)