AMI 2305 Issues-Claim for Policy Limit Under Valued Policy Law-Burden of Proof

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2305

Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil

December 2023 Update

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Chapter 23. Insurance

AMI 2305 Issues-Claim for Policy Limit Under Valued Policy Law-Burden of Proof

(Plaintiff) contends that the building in question was a total loss by (fire)(natural disaster). (Plaintiff) has the burden of proving this contention.

A building is a “total loss” if it is so far destroyed that no substantial part of it remains in place that is capable of being utilized in restoring the building to its condition before the (fire)(natural disaster).

On the other hand, there is no total loss if the part of the building left standing is reasonably suited for use in restoring the building to its condition before the (fire)(natural disaster).

Whether or not the part of the building left standing is reasonably suited for use in restoring the building to its condition before the (fire)(natural disaster) depends on whether a reasonably prudent owner, who is uninsured and desires to restore the building as it was before the (fire)(natural disaster), would utilize the part remaining in restoring the building to its previous condition.

NOTE ON USE

Use this instruction when the plaintiff claims that a building damaged by fire or natural disaster is a total loss, thereby entitling the plaintiff to recover the entire policy limit for the structure coverage under the Arkansas valued policy statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-101.

Use the bracketed word “fire” where the loss is by fire, and “natural disaster” where the loss is by a natural disaster.

Do not use this instruction when the loss involves personal property or detached or appurtenant structures. Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-101(b). Also, do not use this instruction when the claim is made under a policy of flood or earthquake insurance. Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-101(a).

COMMENT

Instructions virtually identical to this instruction were approved in Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Loetscher, 215 Ark. 23, 26–27, 219 S.W.2d 629, 631 (1949), and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Green, 181 Ark. 1096, 1103–1104, 29 S.W.2d 304, 307 (1930). This definition is also found in Conley v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 102 F. Supp. 474, 477 (W.D. Ark. 1952).

End of Document