Fields v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 350 Ark. 75

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas considered whether the parental-immunity doctrine barred a direct action against an automobile insurer for uninsured-motorist benefits arising from a child's injuries caused by a parent's negligent driving. The court created a limited exception to parental immunity for such direct actions where insurance benefits are the requested damages, applied the exception to the case, and reversed and remanded the summary judgment for the insurer. The court stated that the ruling applies prospectively to causes of action arising after the opinion becomes final, except that it applies to the present case.

Holdings

1. Arkansas will not enforce the parental-immunity doctrine when a child brings a direct action against a motor-vehicle liability insurance carrier for uninsured-motorist benefits arising from a parent's negligent operation of a vehicle, where the insurance benefits are the damages sought.
2. The exception is limited to direct-action suits against a motor-vehicle liability insurance carrier for uninsured-motorist coverage when insurance benefits are the damages requested; the parental-immunity doctrine remains applicable in other circumstances unless an existing exception applies.
3. The newly recognized automobile-liability-insurance exception applies to the present case, while the opinion applies prospectively to causes of action arising after the opinion becomes final.
4. Summary judgment for Southern Farm was improper because the parental-immunity doctrine did not bar the direct uninsured-motorist-benefits action under the exception recognized in this opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Arkansas should create an exception to the parental-immunity doctrine for a direct action against a motor-vehicle liability insurer seeking uninsured-motorist benefits for injuries caused by a parent's negligent driving.
2. Whether the newly recognized insurance-based exception should apply to the accident in the present case or only prospectively to causes of action arising after the opinion becomes final.
3. Whether summary judgment was appropriate under the undisputed facts and applicable law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded