(a) No policy or bond shall be effective under § 27-19-604 unless issued by an insurance company or surety company authorized to do business in this state except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, nor unless the policy or bond is subject, if the accident resulted in bodily injury or death, to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of bodily injury or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident and subject to said limit for one (1) person, to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) because of bodily injury or death of two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident, and if the accident has resulted in injury to or destruction of property, to a limit of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident.
(b) No policy or bond shall be effective under § 27-19-604 with respect to any vehicle which was not registered in this state or was a vehicle which was registered elsewhere than in this state at the effective date of the policy or bond or the most recent renewal thereof, unless the insurance company or surety company issuing the policy or bond is authorized to do business in this state, or if the company is not authorized to do business in this state, unless it shall execute a power of attorney authorizing the Director of the Department of Finance and Administration to accept service on its behalf of notice or process in any action upon such policy or bond arising out of an accident.
(c) The office may rely upon the accuracy of the information in a required report of an accident as to the existence of insurance or a bond unless and until the office has reason to believe that the information is erroneous.
History. Acts 1953, No. 347, § 27; 1959, No. 307, § 18; 1981, No. 478, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-1427; Acts 1999, No. 1527, § 2.
Amendments. The 1999 amendment substituted “twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)” for “fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)” preceding “because of injury to” in (a).
Cross References. Penalty for violation of 1959 amendatory act, § 27-50-305.
Research References
Ark. L. Notes.
Copeland, A Brief Survey of Some Important 1990 Insurance Law Decisions, 1991 Ark. L. Notes 75.
Ark. L. Rev.
Legislative Note: Uninsured Motorist Clause, 19 Ark. L. Rev. 377.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage - A Suggested Approach to Consistency, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 167.
Insurance - The Burden of Proving Noninsurance Under Motorist Statute, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 292.
Insurance - Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Set-Off of Amounts Payable Under Medical Payments Coverage, 25 Ark. L. Rev. 548.
Uninsured Motorist Insurance Offset for Workmen's Compensation Benefits, 26 Ark. L. Rev. 570.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Strother, Survey of Insurance Law, 3 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 242.
Survey - Insurance, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 587.
Survey - Torts, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 609.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Accumulation of Coverages.
Double Coverage.
Minimum Limitation.
Right of Set-Off.
Secondary Coverage.
Underinsured Motorist Coverage.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage.
The Central Arkansas Transit Authority is a common carrier as defined in § 23-16-301 and is therefore subject to the requirements of liability under this section and § 23-16-302. Salley v. Central Ark. Transit Auth., 326 Ark. 804, 934 S.W.2d 510 (1996).
Where the twelve premiums were paid for coverage insuring against personal injuries by uninsured motorists and the policy's “other insurance” clause was ambiguous as to whether it applied to other insurance with the same company, the separate uninsured motorist coverages were “stacked” or accumulated, thereby providing a greater award to the claimant under the policy. Dugal v. Commercial Std. Ins. Co., 456 F. Supp. 290 (W.D. Ark. 1978).
In an action by an insured to recover under an uninsured motorist policy, where motorist, who sustained injuries resulting in damage of more than $20,000 when the truck he was driving collided with an uninsured motorist's vehicle, recovered $10,000 under the uninsured motorist policy issued to the owner of the truck, he was then precluded from recovering under a similar policy that had been issued to him personally, even though the policy contained “other insurance” clause. Harris v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 247 Ark. 961, 448 S.W.2d 652 (1970).
Clause in uninsured motorist coverage of liability policy that provided that any amount payable under that coverage because of bodily injury should have been reduced by amount payable under workmen's compensation law was void. Travelers Ins. Co. v. National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co., 252 Ark. 624, 480 S.W.2d 585 (1972).
This section requires only that the amount for which a policy is issued shall be not less than the limit described and an insurance company may provide in its policies coverage in any sum above this minimum which it chooses to pay in the event of the liability of an uninsured motorist if the insured accepts such policies. Robey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 270 F. Supp. 473 (W.D. Ark. 1967), aff'd, 399 F.2d 330 (8th Cir. Ark. 1968), questioned, Boehler v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 290 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Ark. 1968).
An automobile insurance carrier cannot, by policy language, set-off its medical payments, made on behalf of its insured to a third party, against its payment for the same insured to the injured party of the policy limit for bodily injury. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sims, 288 Ark. 541, 708 S.W.2d 72 (1986).
Policy for “the limit of bodily injury liability required by the motor vehicle financial liability law“ is not excused from liability under the uninsured motorist clause of the policy by a partial payment of the damages suffered by the insured in that amount by another insurer, as the limits of this section are minimum and not maximum. Robey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 270 F. Supp. 473 (W.D. Ark. 1967), aff'd, 399 F.2d 330 (8th Cir. Ark. 1968), questioned, Boehler v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 290 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Ark. 1968).
Where a claimant was covered by the uninsured motorist clause in both the primary policy on the car in which she was a passenger and the secondary policy on a car owned by her father, both policies having the same coverage limits, and the primary coverage was insufficient to pay all claims against it, the secondary carrier was entitled to credit under its “other insurance” clause only for so much of the primary coverage as remained after payment of other claims against it, and the claimant was under no obligation to join other claimants in their action against the primary carrier. Childers v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 282 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Ark. 1968).
Underinsured Motorist Coverage.
Where insured sued insurer seeking to have the provisions of her automobile insurance policy interpreted as providing underinsured liability coverage, but had paid premiums for uninsured motorist liability coverage, and, at the time she purchased her policy, insurer did not even offer underinsured motor vehicle coverage, insured's receipt of the very type of insurance for which she paid premiums did not reduce her coverage, did not give a windfall to the insurer, and was not against the public policy of the state. Hawkins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Ark. 582, 792 S.W.2d 307 (1990).
Section 23-89-209 and this section clearly mandate that a minimum of $25,000 underinsured coverage be offered and not an amount equal to the liability insurance purchased by the insured; therefore, when underinsurance is implied by law under § 23-89-209, the insured will be limited to the minimum amount referred to in the statute. Ross v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 320 Ark. 604, 899 S.W.2d 53 (1995).
A provision in an automobile policy that an insurer should not be obligated to pay under uninsured motorist coverage for that part of the damages which the insured might be entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile that represented expenses for medical services paid or payable under the medical payments coverage of policy was void and against public policy in that it reduced the minimum coverage of uninsured motorist protection prescribed and required by law. Heiss v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 250 Ark. 474, 465 S.W.2d 699 (Ark. 1971).
Cited: Kennedy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 F.R.D. 12 (E.D. Ark. 1969); MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 245 Ark. 230, 431 S.W.2d 742 (1968); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 307 F. Supp. 743 (W.D. Ark. 1969); Alexander v. Pilot Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 331 F. Supp. 561 (E.D. Ark. 1971); Howard v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 342 F. Supp. 1125 (W.D. Ark. 1972); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Smith, 263 Ark. 849, 568 S.W.2d 11 (1978); Young v. Bailey, 294 Ark. 300, 742 S.W.2d 905 (1988); Cousins v. Dennis, 298 Ark. 310, 767 S.W.2d 296 (1989); Spears v. City of Fordyce, 351 Ark. 305, 92 S.W.3d 38 (2002).