Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter

551 S.W.2d 211, 261 Ark. 795, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 2152

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 6, 1977

Docket77-14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 551 S.W.2d 211 (Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 551 S.W.2d 211, 261 Ark. 795, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 2152 (Ark. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of appellee based on appellant’s waiver of, or estoppel to assert, the right to avoid or forfeit an insurance policy because appellee failed to plead waiver or estoppel as an affirmative ground for relief; in concluding as a matter of law that a payment by appellee prior to a loss by her was sufficient to keep the policy in force; and in awarding $1,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

The judgment is affirmed under Rule 9 (e) (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas [Vol. 3A, Ark. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1975 p. 118)]. Appellant did not abstract any of the pleadings in the case or the judgment of the court. The case may well turn upon the content of a letter dated April 8, 1976. Appellant states, without record support, as the record is abstracted, that the circuit court’s holding on waiver was based on this letter. We are referred to the record, not the abstract, for support of very broad, general statements made by appellant in its argument in at least three instances, but even in these instances there is no transcript reference. Consequently, we consider the abstract flagrantly deficient.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of appellee based on appellant’s waiver of, or estoppel to assert, the right to avoid or forfeit an insurance policy because appellee failed to plead waiver or estoppel as an affirmative ground for relief; in concluding as a matter of law that a payment by appellee prior to a loss by her was sufficient to keep the policy in force; and in awarding $1,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

The judgment is affirmed under Rule 9 (e) (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas [Vol. 3A, Ark. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1975 p. 118)]. Appellant did not abstract any of the pleadings in the case or the judgment of the court. The case may well turn upon the content of a letter dated April 8, 1976. Appellant states, without record support, as the record is abstracted, that the circuit court’s holding on waiver was based on this letter. We are referred to the record, not the abstract, for support of very broad, general statements made by appellant in its argument in at least three instances, but even in these instances there is no transcript reference. Consequently, we consider the abstract flagrantly deficient.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 S.W.2d 211, 261 Ark. 795, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 2152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dairyland-insurance-co-v-carter-ark-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack