# Village Market, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · July 16, 1998 · 334 Ark. 227

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770961

## Case

- **Full name:** Village Market, Inc. v. State Farm General Insurance Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 16, 1998
- **Citations:** 334 Ark. 227; 975 S.W.2d 86; 1998 Ark. LEXIS 473
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Imber
- **Judges:** Newbern, Brown, Imber
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9770961

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770961. Public record. Not legal advice.