Stucker v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.

11 Citing cases

  1. Kohlenberger v. Tyson's Foods

    256 Ark. 584 (Ark. 1974)   Cited 65 times
    Recognizing that under the Arkansas UCC, limitation of recovery for contracting party's negligence is unenforceable if unconscionable

    Therefore, if there was any provision in the policy which limited the amount of coverage it was the duty of appellant to plead it affirmatively. Stucker v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. 220 Ark. 475. 248 S.W.2d 383 and Bankers Insurance Company. v. Hemby. 217 Ark. 749, 233 S.W.2d 637."

  2. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fields

    553 S.W.2d 278 (Ark. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    In Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fields, 262 Ark. 144, 553 S.W.2d 278 (1977), we dealt with whether a school child was "occupying" a school bus.

    This allegation put appellee to his proof of appellant's liability. Stucker v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Company, 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383. Cases relied upon by appellant to bring Karen within the terms of the policy as an insured are not applicable when we apply the plain, unequivocal, unambiguous definition of the word "occupying" given in the policy.

  3. Home Ins. Co. v. Williams

    252 Ark. 1012 (Ark. 1972)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that "a liberal construction requires that every reasonable intendment should be indulged in favor of the pleader and effect should be given to substance rather than form regardless of the name of the pleading"

    In Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett, 240 Ark. 458, 400 S.W.2d 294 (1966), we said: "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 be specially pleaded." See, also, Stucker v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383 (1952). In our view, it was necessary for the appellant to specifically invoke the "cooperation" clause in the trial of the case.

  4. Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett

    400 S.W.2d 294 (Ark. 1966)   Cited 12 times
    In Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Howlett, 240 Ark. 458, 400 S.W.2d 294 (1966), we said: "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 be specially pleaded."

    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 be 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.

  5. St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Gray

    398 S.W.2d 506 (Ark. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, if there was any provision in the policy which limited the amount of coverage it was the duty of appellant to plead it affirmatively. Stucker v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383 and Bankers Insurance Company v. Hemby, 217 Ark. 749, 233 S.W.2d 637. 2. It is argued by appellant "the burden of proving the policy provisions covering the manner of determination of the extent of the damages" is on appellee.

  6. American Life Annuity v. Dancer

    398 S.W.2d 529 (Ark. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    Several cases are then cited in support of this holding. See also Stucker v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383, and cases cited therein. Here, appellant company only filed a general denial, and, in so doing, waived any possible defense created by the exception clause.

  7. Pinnacle Old Line Insurance Co. v. Ellis

    307 S.W.2d 882 (Ark. 1957)   Cited 6 times

    The restrictions upon the insurer's liability are contained in a subsequent schedule and constitute exceptions that must be pleaded affirmatively. Stucker v. Hartford Acc. Ind. Co., 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383. These defenses were not mentioned in any way until after the verdict. As we said in a similar situation in Greenwich Ins. Co. v. State, 74 Ark. 72, 84 S.W. 1025: "If the appellant is right in its contention, then it had a defense, pro tanto, to the suit, and a failure to plead it waived it. This court has frequently decided that when a battery is masked in the trial court, it cannot be opened in this court."

  8. Fidelity Reserve Ins. Co. v. English

    288 S.W.2d 951 (Ark. 1956)   Cited 4 times
    Roofing tack foot wound coupled with arteriosclerosis: amputation

    The appellant's reliance upon a clause requiring a disabled insured to be regularly attended by a physician is met by the complete absence of proof that the appellee was not so attended. This general provision, appearing in the latter part of the policy, constitutes an exception to the basic insuring clauses and therefore presents at most an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved. Stucker v. Hartford Acc. Ind. Co., 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383. Here the defense was pleaded but not proved. Neither is there sufficient proof to establish the contention that the appellee accepted a check in full settlement of her claim.

  9. Stucker v. Hartford Accident Indemnity

    258 S.W.2d 544 (Ark. 1953)   Cited 5 times

    Appellant Stucker filed suit on a policy of insurance covering the life of a horse. This is the second appeal. 220 Ark. 475, 248 S.W.2d 383. On the 24th day of November, 1950, for the purchase price of $50 appellant bought the horse in question, a four-year old named "Charlie." About one week later, December 1, 1950, appellant obtained the policy which insured the horse for $1,000.

  10. Century Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. CNA/Transportation Insurance Co.

    23 S.W.3d 874 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that an insurance policy exclusion is an affirmative defense which must be pled or it may be waived

    State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.Co. v. Central Sur. Ins. Corp.,405 S.W.2d 530 (Mo.App. 1966) (citations omitted). Other jurisdictions have also held similarly, but have gone one step further in directly stating that an insurance policy exclusion is an affirmative defense that must be pled. "[A]n exception to the insurer's liability is an affirmative defense that is waived if not pleaded."Stucker v. Hartford Accident Indemnity, Co., 248 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Ark. 1952). "[The] necessity of raising insurance coverage exception in answer to insured's complaint was not eliminated merely because the affirmative defense may have been stated in responses to interrogatories, in correspondence exchanged between the parties, and in depositions taken prior to trial, none of which constituted a pleading or a defense to a pleading."