# Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Nowlin > Court of Appeals of Arkansas · February 20, 2008 · 101 Ark. App. 354 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633102 ## Case - **Full name:** FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. of ARKANSAS v. Gary NOWLIN - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas - **Decided:** February 20, 2008 - **Citations:** 101 Ark. App. 354; 276 S.W.3d 723; 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 152 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Baker - **Judges:** David M. Glover - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633102 ## Opinion text Karen R. Baker, Judge, dissenting. When a party is given an opportunity to supplement the addendum, and the party fails to do so within the prescribed time limits, we should affirm the circuit court’s judgment. See Heard v. Regions Bank, 370 Ark. 117 , 257 S.W.3d 543 (2007) (affirming trial court’s judgment after a review of the clerk’s docket sheet showed that Heard failed to supplement the addendum as previously ordered within the prescribed time limits). On May 2,2007, in an unpublished opinion in Farm Bureau v. Nowlin, 2007 WL 1277902 (2007), this court issued an opinion ordering rebriefing and instructing Farm Bureau to cure the deficiencies in the brief by providing a copy of the documents relied upon at trial that were omitted from appellant’s abstract and addendum. Included in the documents listed by this court was a copy of the insurance policy (upon which this entire case is based). In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion with this court stating “the language of the insurance policy is abstracted beginning on page 25 of the abstract through the testimony of Forrest Fletcher. . . .” (Emphasis added.) “The addendum, on page 34, contains the letter from Farm Bureau to Nowlin denying his claim, which includes the relevant language from the insurance policy.” (Emphasis added.) In its motion, Farm Bureau acknowledged that the policy was exhibit two at trial; however, it refused to attach the policy. Instead of complying with this court’s rebriefing order, Farm Bureau added only two pages of the policy to its addendum. Without a complete record, this court should summarily affirm. See Larry v. Grady Sch. Dist., 82 Ark. App. 185 , 119 S.W.3d 528 (2003) (in the absence of a complete record on appeal, we are compelled to summarily affirm the trial court’s order). In the absence of the entire insurance policy this court cannot conduct an effective review. Our supreme court has “consistently adhered” to the notion that the entire contract should be before it, in order to construe any part of the contract. See First Nat’l Bank v. Griffin, 310 Ark. 164, 170 , 832 S.W.2d 816, 819 (1992). This court adhered to the requirement that we review the entire contract in Hartford Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 54 Ark. App. 1 , 922 S.W.2d 360 (1996). In Harford, this court stated: It is axiomatic that, to determine the rights and duties under a contract, we must determine the intent of the parties.... It is well settled that the intent of the parties is to be determinedfrom the whole context of the agreement; the court must consider the instrument in its entirety. Clearly, it is an appellant’s burden to bring up a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Without the contract in question, which may have spoken in any number of ways to the issue of the person or persons entitled to the policy proceeds, we cannot determine whether the trial court erred. Id. at 3 , 922 S.W.2d at 362 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In Hartford, supra, the insurance contract did not appear in the abstract or the record, and this court affirmed, concluding that appellant had failed in its burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Id. In the case at hand, Farm Bureau provided this court with only two pages of a contract that is at least ten pages in length. See Gibbs v. Hensley, 345 Ark. 179 , 44 S.W.3d 334 (2001) (summarily affirming where an initial review of the record revealed there were at least fourteen missing documents). We have repeatedly emphasized that the appellant bears the burden of bringing forth an adequate record on appeal. See Cannon Remodeling v. The Marketing Co., 79 Ark. App. 432 , 90 S.W.3d 5 (2002); see also Rothbaum v. Arkansas Local Police, 346 Ark. 171 , 55 S.W.3d 760 (2001). In the absence of a complete record on appeal, we cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and we are compelled to summarily affirm. See Hankins v. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., 330 Ark. 492 , 954 S.W.2d 259 (1997). Griffen, J., joins. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633102. Public record. Not legal advice.