Ark. Code Ann. » Title 23 Chapter 88
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-105 (2026)

Notice required prior to expiration of property insurance policy — Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except for nonpayment of premium, the insurer shall give either a written notice of nonrenewal or an offer of renewal at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the policy's existing term.
  2. The insurer shall send the insured a written notice and the insurance producer written or electronic notice of the offer of renewal under subsection (a) of this section, indicating the new premium and providing a description of any change in deductible or policy provision in the renewal policy.
  3. As used in this section, “renewal” means the issuance or delivery by an insurer of a policy superseding a policy previously issued by the insurer at the end of the previously issued policy period if the policy is delivered by:
    1. The same insurer; or
    2. An affiliate or subsidiary, as those terms are defined in § 23-63-503, that has a financial strength rating that is:
      1. Issued by an industry-recognized independent insurance rating company; and
      2. At least as good as the insurer issuing the superseded policy.

History. Acts 2003, No. 1790, § 2; 2019, No. 689, § 4.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment added (c).

Case Notes

Sufficient Notice.

In the insured's action to obtain additional insurance benefits for smoke and fire damage at his home, the district court correctly interpreted his insurance policy as an actual cash-value policy, rather than a replacement-cost policy, because the annual policies included actual-cash-value endorsements and the policy renewal documents satisfied the requirements of this section. Before renewal, the insured received two notice of renewal letters and was afforded 13 months to review the materials including declaration pages referencing the endorsement that had been attached to his policy. Hatcher v. MDOW Ins. Co., 903 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2018).

Type of Insurance.

In insured's suit against an insurer for breach of contract and negligence based on the insurer's failure to give notice of policy expiration and to pay on a grain-loss claim, genuine issues of material fact remained whether the insurance policy at issue could be both casualty insurance and property insurance, such that this section applied. Thus, summary judgment in favor of the insurer was not appropriate. McClendon v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 Ark. App. 216 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2019 · leading case: McClendon v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 575 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McClendon v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 575 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 19× “Plaintiff denies that the policy expired on October 4, 2015 because Farm Bureau did not comply with and give the notices required by Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-105 . Plaintiff contended that the failure of Farm Bureau to comply with Ark.”
William Hatcher v. MDOW Ins. Co., 903 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 23-88-105 . We agree with the district court that all years' policies contained the actual-cash-value endorsement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.