Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. Parks
Citations: 266 Ark. 454; 585 S.W.2d 936; 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1531Docket: 79-69
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 10, 1979; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Appellee's house was completely destroyed by fire, leading to a dispute with appellant, the insurer, over payment. Appellant claimed that appellee fraudulently inflated the house's value to obtain a policy worth $45,000, significantly above its actual value. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellee for the dwelling coverage after appellant presented its case. The jury then determined the value of the house's contents in favor of appellee. Appellant's appeal contends that the trial court erred by not allowing the evidence of alleged fraud to be considered by the jury. The court examined the validity of directing a verdict, emphasizing that it must view evidence favorably towards the party against whom the verdict is directed. If substantial evidence exists to support the opposing party’s claims, the case should not be removed from the jury's consideration. Appellee had purchased the house and land for $23,000 and financed it with a $25,000 loan, with a subsequent appraisal valuing the property at $33,500. Appellee's alleged misrepresentation occurred during a conversation with the insurer's agent, where he discussed the insurance coverage amount and remodeling plans. Despite the realtor's appraisal potentially including the value of planned improvements, appellee did not receive the appraisal details and assumed the value was solely for the dwelling. The application for insurance coverage requested $40,000, but the agent submitted a $45,000 request without appellee's explicit consent. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of fraudulent misrepresentation by appellee, affirming the trial court's directed verdict in favor of appellee. The decision was agreed upon by the Chief Justice and two other Justices.