GERALDINE STAFFORD, APPELLEE,
v.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1972-03-20
No. 71-1495
457 F.2d 366 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in the defendant's contentions of error regarding jury instructions and awarding an additional attorney fee for a frivolous appeal.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff recovered a judgment under an uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy. The jury's verdict was reduced to the policy limit, and t…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant under the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy. The policy concededly was in force and effect on the day plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in her husband’s automobile.

The jury’s verdict for $50,000 was properly reduced by the district court to $10,000, the limit of liability under the policy. In its post-trial order reducing the amount of the award, the court stated in part:

“Defendant did not have a case and was totally unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious in its failure to even offer to settle with plaintiff within the limits of the policy, and were it in this Court’s power, under the laws of Arkansas, to affirm the jury’s verdict of $50,000 it would. Sadly, it cannot.”

The court imposed a penalty of $1,200 and allowed a $2,500 attorney fee authorized by Arkansas Stat.Ann. § 66-3238. Judgment was entered for a total of $13,700.

On this appeal, the defendant submits two contentions of error: (1) submission of the issue of aggravation of a pre-existing physical condition; (2) failure to instruct the jury under Arkansas Model Instruction (AMI) 2203 in its entirety.

We find both contentions void of any substance and affirm.

As to contention No. 1, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff fully warranted giving the instruction which permitted the jury to consider whether the injury sustained by plaintiff in the automobile collision activated a pre-existing disease from which plaintiff had been suffering. The second contention also must be rejected because the court was not duty bound to follow AMI 2203. The court was required to and did fully and properly instruct upon all elements of the case in light of the controlling Arkansas law.

Plaintiff has requested this court to allow an attorney fee for services rendered on appeal. Arkansas Stat. Ann. § 66-3238 authorizes taxation of an attorney fee under appropriate conditions, “by the court where the same is heard on original action, by appeal or otherwise. . . . ” (Emphasis supplied.) Inasmuch as we are convinced that this appeal borders on the frivolous, we conclude that plaintiff should be allowed an additional attorney fee of $500. The judgment is modified by adding $500 thereto, and as modified, is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw