Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Parsons
429 S.W.3d 215
Ark.2013Background
- Parsons sustained injuries in a 2010 motorcycle- automobile collision with an uninsured driver; he had $50,000 UM coverage with Farm Bureau.
- Parsons released medical bills and received a PIP payment; medical bills exceeded the policy limit.
- Farm Bureau filed an interpleader action on May 17, 2011 to have the policy funds disbursed; Parsons answered pro se seeking payment of the policy to him.
- On November 8, 2011 the circuit court ordered deposit into the registry and discharge of Farm Bureau from liability, with funds to be disbursed by court order.
- In March–April 2012 Parsons counterclaimed for bad faith, interest, and fees; Farm Bureau moved to strike/limit; Farm Bureau argued Rule 60(a) cut off jurisdiction after 90 days.
- On August 1, 2012 the circuit court vacated the November 8, 2011 order under Rule 60(c)(4) for fraud/misrepresentation; Farm Bureau sought writ of prohibition; court treated as certiorari and denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court could set aside the 2011 order after 90 days under Rule 60(a). | Farm Bureau claims no jurisdiction to vacate after 90 days. | Parsons contends circuit court retained jurisdiction; Rule 60(c)(4) fraud/ misrepresentation can justify vacatur. | Writ denied; court held adequate remedy by appeal; jurisdiction not lacking on record. |
| Whether Rule 60(c)(4) fraud supported vacating the order. | Farm Bureau argues lack of fraud; misrepresentation not shown. | Parsons asserts constructive fraud via Farm Bureau's conduct justifies vacatur. | Vacatur based on Rule 60(c)(4) affirmed as basis for setting aside the order. |
| Whether a writ of prohibition is proper or certiorari was the correct vehicle. | Farm Bureau seeks prohibition to stop circuit court from acting. | Parsons argues prohibition inappropriate; certiorari or appeal are proper remedies. | Writ treated as certiorari; denied; adequate remedy by appeal exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Poksey, 309 Ark. 206 (1992) (circuit court subject-matter jurisdiction; appeal as remedy)
- Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 422 (2003) (certiorari not substitute for appeal)
- Patsy Simmons Ltd. P’ship v. Finch, 2010 Ark. 451 (2010) (certiorari standards; abuse of discretion review)
- Parker v. Crow, 2010 Ark. 371 (2010) (certiorari standards; lack of jurisdiction on face of record)
- Thompson v. McCain, 2013 Ark. 261 (2013) (certiorari review thresholds)
- Savage v. Hawkins, 239 Ark. 658 (1965) (prohibition not remedy for ordinary rulings; limits of writ)
- White v. Palo, 2011 Ark. 126 (2011) (prohibition/requested relief; final orders)
- Reynolds Metal Co. v. Cir. Ct. of Clark Cnty., 2013 Ark. 287 (2013) (scope of extraordinary relief; jurisdictional limits)
- Porocel Corp. v. Cir. Ct. of Saline Cnty., 2013 Ark. 172 (2013) (jurisdictional questions in prohibition/certiorari)
- Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 422 (2003) (certiorari not substitute for appeal)
- Savage v. Hawkins, 239 Ark. 658 (1965) (abuse of discretion not cured by prohibition)