 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.6/19/2003
t time on appeal. See e.g., Raley v. Wagner, 346 Ark. 234, 241 n.1, 57 S.W.3d 683, 687 n.1 (2001); Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co., 344 Ark. 711, 724, 42 S.W.3d 496, 503 (2001). Mr. Hisaw never contended to the circuit court that the Fire Department was an unincorporated association. Rather, he urged before that court that all of the firefighters in the Fire Department were covered because that was the purpose of the coverage. In addition, Mr. Hisaw did not complain about State Farm's use of affidavits to prove the contents of the declaration pages to the circuit court, and, accordingly, he is foreclosed from doing so now before this court.
The circuit court found: "Based on the undisputed facts and the Inspiration Point policy language, Mr. Glenn Hisaw was neither a named insured nor an insured under the terms of the policies based on the facts of this case. . . ." Mr. Hisaw offered no proof to contradict this finding. We affirm the circuit court.
III. Other Issues
Two other issues are raised by the Hisaws. Mrs. Hisaw maintains that the circuit court erred in entering summary judgment against her on loss of consortium. It is true that the circuit court "dismissed" all claims brought by Mr. and Mrs. Hisaw against State Farm. Yet, the court never specifically addressed her loss-of-consortium claim; nor did the court address whether loss of consortium must be tied to bodily injury or death, as State Farm contends in this appeal. Without findings of fact or conclusions relating to this issue, this court has nothing to review. Nevertheless, because we reverse and remand Mr. Hisaw's claims under the two personal policies for further proceedings, Mrs. Hisaw's claim, as one that is derivative from Mr. Hisaw's cause of action, is still viable and may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. See, e.g., Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 Ark. 57, 477 S.W.2d 186 (1972) (describing a wife's loss-of-consortium claim for injuries sustained by her husband as a "derivative claim"); Lopez v. Waldrum Estate, 249 Ark. 558, 460 S.W.2d 61 (1970) (" e have held that [a loss-of-consortium] cause of action is derivative and subject to the defense of comparative negligence."); Nelson v. Busby, 246 Ark. 247, 437 S.W.2d 799 (1969) (holding that a husband's loss-of-consortium claim was derivative and affirming on that basis a reduction in his recovery due to the contributory negligence of his wife).
As a final point, we need not address the issue revolving around whether Mr. Hisaw was a pedestrian at the time of his injury, as it appears largely irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Affirmed in part; Reversed and remanded in part.
Glaze and Corbin, JJ., not participating.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|