Resolute Insurance v. Mize

8 Citing cases

  1. Hendrix v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company

    390 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1968)   Cited 157 times
    Holding that refusing to allow cure of this kind of defect by amendment "would be too grudging with reference to the controlling statute, too prone to equate imperfect allegations of jurisdiction with the total absence of jurisdictional foundations, and would tend unduly to exalt form over substance and legal flaw-picking over the orderly disposition of cases properly committed to federal courts"

    " This distinction is further made clear, or other differences may be noted in cases relied upon by appellant and related cases, including Ciaramitaro v. Saskatchewan Government Ins. Office, 144 F. Supp. 237 (D.Mass. 1956); Resolute Ins. Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682 (1953); Shelton v. Great American Ins. Co. of New York, 100 S.W.2d 591 (Mo.App. 1937), and Crowell v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 169 N.C. 35, 85 S.E. 37 (1915). See also Reliance Insurance Co. v. Jones, 296 F.2d 71, 94 A.L.R.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1961), where the storage of a small amount of grain in an elevator was held not to amount to "occupancy" of the building on the facts; Scottish Union and Nat. Ins. Co. v. Encampment Smelting Co., 166 F. 231 (8th Cir., Wyo. 1908), where occupancy by the installation of certain machinery was held to be primarily testing and not within the definition of occupancy provided in the policy; Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Cherokee Laboratories, Inc., 288 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1961), which involved a policy providing that it should not apply "while the aircraft * * * is being operated by any person other than the pilots stated in Item 5 of the Declarations * * *"; and Hightower v. New York Fire Ins. Co., 112 F. Supp. 10 (D.S.Car. 1953), where it was found that

  2. Lineas Aereas v. Travelers Fire

    257 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1958)   Cited 18 times

    Travelers Protective Association of America v. Prinscen, 291 U.S. 576, 582, 54 S.Ct. 502, 504, 78 L.Ed. 999, 1003. Among the many cases showing the affirmative and negative limitations of the doctrine of suspension are: Fidelity Phenix-Fire Insurance Co. v. Pilot Freight Carriers, 4 Cir., 193 F.2d 812; Hutto v. Atlantic Life Insurance Co., 4 Cir., 58 F.2d 69, 71; Ciaramitaro v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, D.C.Mass., 144 F. Supp. 237, 1956 A.M.C. 928, affirmed 1 Cir., 234 F.2d 491, 1956 A.M.C. 1400; Waters v. National Life Accident Insurance Co., D.C.Okla., 61 F. Supp. 957; Fort Worth Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Lane, Tex.Civ. App., 189 S.W.2d 78 (no writ history); American Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Wilcox, D.C.N.Y., 16 F. Supp. 799; Nichols v. Hawkeye Casualty Co., 233 Iowa 838, 10 N.W.2d 533; Resolute Insurance Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682; Wall v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., 46 So.2d 655; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Aguayo, D.C. Cal., 29 F. Supp. 561; Imperial Assurance Co. v. Perry, 252 Ala. 424, 41 So.2d 394. See, also, 5 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2944, p. 18, § 3002, p. 71; 7 Id. § 4326, p. 107 and 114; 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, §§ 751-757; and Annotations, 52 A.L.R. 843; 10 L.R.A., N.S., 736; 28 L.R.A., N.S., 593; 32 L.R.A., N.S., 240; 48 L.R.A., N.S., 1221. But here the proscribed activity continued up to the moment of loss.

  3. Tri-State Ins. v. McCraw

    483 S.W.2d 212 (Ark. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    "The company may pay for the loss in money or may repair or replace the automobile or such part thereof. . ." We have never held such limitations by contract invalid in Arkansas, but on the contrary have recognized them as valid. Resolute Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 221 Ark. 419, 253 S.W.2d 771; Resolute Ins. Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682. In Traders General Ins. Co. v. Williams, 229 Ark. 923, 319 S.W.2d 847, we said:

  4. Insured Lloyds v. Mayo

    427 S.W.2d 164 (Ark. 1968)   Cited 11 times

    An instruction is inherently erroneous only when it could not be correct under any circumstances. Abel of Arkansas, Inc. v. Richards, 236 Ark. 281, 365 S.W.2d 705. Where an alternative limit on the liability of an insurance company is the actual cash value of an automobile, the instruction given is correct. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Gaither, 238 Ark. 50, 378 S.W.2d 211; Resolute Ins. Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682. III.

  5. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gaither

    378 S.W.2d 211 (Ark. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    We have held that the measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the vehicle immediately before and after the collision. Resolute Insurance Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682; Kane v. Carper-Dover Mercantile Co., 206 Ark. 674, 177 S.W.2d 41; and Golenternek v. Kurth, 213 Ark. 643, 212 S.W.2d 14, 3 A.L.R.2d 593. The company points out that a letter had been directed to Gaither in June, advising, "Repairs to your truck will be guaranteed, insofar as any damage to the vehicle sustained in the accident;" a similar letter was written in July, and the company agent also testified that he told appellee that the company would guarantee repairs and that if any item was overlooked or not properly repaired, same would be corrected at the expense of the company.

  6. Forrest v. General Insurance Co. of America

    890 S.W.2d 612 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994)

    Moreover, contrary to appellee's assertion, the factfinder should have been allowed to consider the time it would take to repair the airplane in determining whether an estimate was reasonable. In Resolute Insurance Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 711-12, 255 S.W.2d 682 (1953), the supreme court held that an award was not limited to the lowest estimate where the lowest estimate was from a concern in a distant city. If the insurer elects to make repairs, there is an implied obligation to perform within a reasonable time. Accord Resolute Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 221 Ark. 419, 423, 253 S.W.2d 771 (1952).

  7. Brown v. State Farm Fire Casualty Corp.

    338 N.E.2d 427 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 13 times
    Finding that a reasonable period of time for an insurer to resolve a claim depends on the circumstances of each case and is a question of fact unless the period of time constitutes a period so brief or so long as to be clearly reasonable or unreasonable

    In Smith v. Farm Bureau, 98 N.H. 420, 101 A.2d 778 (1953), the court in interpreting a collision coverage provision of a policy giving the insurer an election as to the manner of settling a collision loss, after citing Dosland, held that such election must meet the test of being clear, positive, distinct, and unambiguous. • 5 In Resolute Insurance Co. v. Mize, 221 Ark. 705, 255 S.W.2d 682 (1953), the insurer had an option under the collision coverage of the policy to pay for the loss in money or to repair or replace the vehicle. The insured was stationed at Little Rock and several estimates for his insured truck were obtained from repair shops in North Little Rock ranging from $4219.

  8. Gambale v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    209 Pa. Super. 330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1967)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that lower of two estimates must be paid where parties stipulated both shops were "reputable" and would do "proper" job

    See also: Home Mutual Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Stewart, 105 Colo. 516, 100 P.2d 159 (1940). In Resolute Insurance Co. v. Mize, 255 S.W.2d 682 (1953), the award was not limited to the lowest estimate, where the lowest estimate was from a concern in a distant city in another state. The language construed in the Karp case, supra, is almost identical to the language in the contract in this case.