Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-203 (2026)

Rejection of coverage

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The named insured shall have the right to reject in writing all or any one (1) or more of the coverages enumerated in § 23-89-202.
After a named insured or applicant for insurance rejects this coverage, the insurer or any of its affiliates shall not be required to notify any insured in any renewal, reinstatement, substitute, amended, or replacement policy as to the availability of such coverage.

History. Acts 1973, No. 138, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 66-4015; Acts 1995, No. 527, § 1.

Case Notes

In General.

This section and § 23-89-202 encompass the mandatory offering of coverage accompanied by the right to reject such coverage in whole or in part, not mandatory coverage of any and all risks. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 315 Ark. 409, 867 S.W.2d 457 (1993).

Trial court did not err in granting an insurer's motion for summary judgment in an insured's action to recover benefits under a no-fault medical provision because the exclusion contained in the insured's policy was valid and applied in all scenarios where workers' compensation benefits either had been paid in whole or in part or could be paid in whole or in part; because the insured was covered by workers' compensation, she was excluded from receiving medical-payments coverage under § 23-89-205. Bohot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 Ark. 22, 386 S.W.3d 408 (2012).

Legislative Intent.

Even though this section, in 1994, provided that a rejection would be effective for policy renewals, that language did not precisely embrace renewals when vehicles have been substituted; had the General Assembly desired to expand single-rejection concept to substituted vehicles as well as to simple renewals of existing coverage, it could easily have done so, but it had not yet done so. Fimpel v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 322 Ark. 797, 911 S.W.2d 950 (1995).

Retroactivity.

Even though General Assembly amended this section to clarify insurer's duty with regard to notifying insureds of no-fault and uninsured motorist coverage when there is a substitution of coverage, it would be patently unfair to sanction a legislative clarification of a preexisting statute when the Supreme Court had previously construed the effect of mandatory coverage on substituted vehicles contrary to the purported clarification; thus, where motorist was injured in the accident on July 24, 1994, the version of this section as it existed on that date would apply. Fimpel v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 322 Ark. 797, 911 S.W.2d 950 (1995).

Signature.

Insured's wife completed an online application expressly rejecting medical benefits coverage, as under § 25-32-107(c) the record of the wife's electronic signature that memorialized the wife's rejection of coverage qualified as a written rejection of benefits under this section. Barwick v. Government Employee Ins. Co., 2011 Ark. 128 (2011).

Substitution of Vehicle.

Where 1978 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight was included in the 1994 insurance declaration sent to motorist prior to accident involving that vehicle, this equated to delivery of a new policy on the substituted covered vehicle and a rejection of no-fault insurance was required at that time; failure to obtain a rejection of the coverage with respect to the 1978 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight resulted in no-fault coverage being in effect in 1994 pursuant to this section. Fimpel v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 322 Ark. 797, 911 S.W.2d 950 (1995).

Waiver.

The no-fault coverage provided by § 23-89-202 can be waived; a named driver exclusion cannot violate public policy when one realizes that a prospective purchaser of insurance may reject no-fault insurance altogether. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 315 Ark. 409, 867 S.W.2d 457 (1993).

Cited: O'Bar v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 275 Ark. 247, 628 S.W.2d 561 (1982); Carnathan v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 288 Ark. 399, 705 S.W.2d 885 (1986); Glenn v. Farmers & Merchants Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1986); Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 326 Ark. 1023, 934 S.W.2d 527 (1996); Toller v. Sagamore Ins. Co., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Ark. 2007).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1993–2017 · leading case: Shelter Gen. Ins. v. Williams, 867 S.W.2d 457 (Ark. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shelter Gen. Ins. v. Williams, 867 S.W.2d 457 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 12× “Under Ark.Code Ann. § 23-89-203 (1987) the insured has the right to reject the coverages enumerated in section 23-89-202.”

S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. v. Allen, 934 S.W.2d 527 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “At the close of Appellee’s case as plaintiff and with agreement from Appellant, the trial court directed a $5,000.”

Fimpel v. State Auto. Mut. Ins., 911 S.W.2d 950 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 11× “This appeal raises the issue of whether a declaration of automobile insurance issued with a substituted vehicle requires a second rejection of no-fault insurance under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-203 (Repl. 1992). We conclude that it does, and we reverse the decision of the circuit…”

Bohot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 386 S.W.3d 408 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-202 requires that minimum medical and hospital benefits be made available by automobile-liability insurers unless rejected in writing pursuant to section 23-89-203. Bohot had these benefits in her policy with State Farm.”

Colonia Underwriters Ins. v. Richardson, 924 S.W.2d 808 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 8× “We stated that we were certain that the General Assembly did not intend that rejection of uninsured motorist coverage in one insurance contract be binding in a subsequent one. Similarly, we have held that a declaration of automobile insurance issued with a substituted vehicle…”

Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ark. App. 26 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-203(a) permits an insured to reject one or more of the coverages listed in Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-202, including medical and hospital benefits.”

S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. v. Easter, 287 S.W.3d 537 (Ark. 2008). “§ 23-89-203(a). Section 23-89-205 is even more instructive for purposes of the instant case, as it provides: An insurer may exclude benefits to any insured, or to his or her personal representative, under a policy required by § 23-89-202, when the insured’s conduct contributed…”

Ballesteros v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 Ark. App. 662 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The car appellant was driving, when involved in the motor vehicle accident, was not insured by appellee, and therefore, by statute, was not covered for PIP. We find no error with the circuit court.”

Est. of Baker v. Columbia Mut. Ins., 32 S.W.3d 36 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “For instance, the legislature required that if an insured purchases uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage, then written rejection of uninsured motorist property damage coverage is required for certain purposes.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-203(a) — 2 cases

Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2017 Ark. App. 26 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-203(a) permits an insured to reject one or more of the coverages listed in Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-89-202, including medical and hospital benefits.”

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.