stating that “[section 16-22-308] never mentions insurance policies and never expressly provides attorney’s fees for either insureds or insurers”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[section 16-22-308] never mentions insurance policies and never expressly provides attorney’s fees for either insureds or insurers”
- holding that under Arkansas law, if two statutes apply to award of attorney fees, more specific statute prevails
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. Contrary to the intimation by the new majority, the arguments presented by Village Market and the amicus petitioners were fully considered when this case was originally submitted and decided. Thus, petitioners have failed to state a valid ground for rehearing under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-3(g). State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Brown, 48 Ark. App. 136 , 892 S.W.2d 519 (1995), relied on by the majority as a basis for rehearing, is remarkably not on point. There, the court of appeals rejected a claim by an insured for an attorney’s fee under the breach-of-contract provision. Given that Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-208 (Repl. 1992) is replete with references to when and how an insured may recover such a fee, the statutory-interpretation issue confronting the court of appeals in Brown was completely dissimilar from the present case. I dissent from the grant of rehearing for the reasons stated in the original majority opinion handed down on June 11, 1998.
Newbern and Brown, JJ., join in this dissent.