Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett

400 S.W.2d 294, 240 Ark. 458, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1329

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 14, 1966

Docket5-3820

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 400 S.W.2d 294 (Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett) 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

Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett, 400 S.W.2d 294, 240 Ark. 458, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1329 (Ark. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the appellee as the beneficiary of a $1,000 life insurance policy issued by the appellant upon the life of Lloyd Pierce, who died on August 25, 1964. The defendant filed a general denial, but it failed to file proper responses to the plaintiff ’s .requests for admissions of fact. Upon this state of the record the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment.

The court was right. In an action upon an insurance policy a general denial merely puts the plaintiff to his proof; an affirmative defense, such as an exception in the policy, must he specially pleaded. Stucker v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 220 Ark. 475, 248 S. W. 2d 383 (1952). Hence in the case at bar the defendant’s general denial merely put in issue the allegations of the complaint.

The plaintiff’s requests for admissions covered all the material facts alleged in the complaint. The defendant’s only response consisted of unverified denials signed only by its attorney. Such a failure to comply with the statute admits the facts asserted in the request for admissions. Ark. Stat. Ann., § 28-358 (Repl. 1962); Young v. Dodson, 239 Ark. 143, 388 S. W. 2d 94 (1965); Brown v. Lewis, 231 Ark. 976, 334 S. W. 2d 225 (1960). The complaint stated a cause of action. Inasmuch as there was no material fact left in dispute the court had no alternative to granting the motion for a summary judgment. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-211 (c); Jones v. Comer, 237 Ark. 500, 374 S. W. 2d 465 (1964).

Affirmed.

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

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the appellee as the beneficiary of a $1,000 life insurance policy issued by the appellant upon the life of Lloyd Pierce, who died on August 25, 1964. The defendant filed a general denial, but it failed to file proper responses to the plaintiff ’s .requests for admissions of fact. Upon this state of the record the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment.

The court was right. In an action upon an insurance policy a general denial merely puts the plaintiff to his proof; an affirmative defense, such as an exception in the policy, must he specially pleaded. Stucker v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 220 Ark. 475, 248 S. W. 2d 383 (1952). Hence in the case at bar the defendant’s general denial merely put in issue the allegations of the complaint.

The plaintiff’s requests for admissions covered all the material facts alleged in the complaint. The defendant’s only response consisted of unverified denials signed only by its attorney. Such a failure to comply with the statute admits the facts asserted in the request for admissions. Ark. Stat. Ann., § 28-358 (Repl. 1962); Young v. Dodson, 239 Ark. 143, 388 S. W. 2d 94 (1965); Brown v. Lewis, 231 Ark. 976, 334 S. W. 2d 225 (1960). The complaint stated a cause of action. Inasmuch as there was no material fact left in dispute the court had no alternative to granting the motion for a summary judgment. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-211 (c); Jones v. Comer, 237 Ark. 500, 374 S. W. 2d 465 (1964).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 S.W.2d 294, 240 Ark. 458, 1966 Ark. LEXIS 1329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-life-ins-co-v-howlett-ark-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack