Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22-101 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Insurance, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 587.

Case Notes

In General.

Trial court did not err when it dismissed a negligence suit brought by injured motorist against the owner of an uninsured motorcycle that was being driven by someone else at the time of the accident because the motorist had failed to state a claim under the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, § 27-19-101, et seq., or the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, § 27-22-101, et seq.Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).

Based on the plain language and the legislative history of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, § 27-22-101, et seq., and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, § 27-19-101 et seq., the Supreme Court of Arkansas declined to impose civil liability on a motor vehicle owner solely for failing to insure his or her motor vehicle. Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).

Construction.

Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, § 27-22-101, et seq., is supplemental to and cumulative to the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, § 27-19-101, et seq.Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).

Common Law.

Arkansas compulsory insurance statutes have not abrogated the insurer's common law right to rescission when: (1) only the insurer and the insured are involved in a noncompulsory provision of the policy, and (2) the policy has been in existence less than 60 days, unless it is a renewal policy. Ferrell v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Cas. Co., 306 Ark. 533, 816 S.W.2d 593 (1991).

Exclusion.

This chapter would not render a clause in an automobile liability insurance policy, excluding coverage to the minor son of the insured, void as against public policy. Smith v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 327 Ark. 208, 937 S.W.2d 180 (1997).

A named-insured exclusion clause, which stated that “no coverage is afforded by this policy while any vehicle is being used, driven, operated, or manipulated by, or under the care, custody or control of” a specified person, was not void as against public policy. Jordan v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co., 344 Ark. 81, 40 S.W.3d 254 (2001).

Legislature's intent is clear as stated in subsection (a) of this section, and that the compulsory insurance law of the Arkansas Code was not intended in any way to alter or affect the validity of any policy provisions, exclusions, exceptions, or limitations of automobile insurance policies; the trial court erred in granting the claimants' motions for summary judgment on grounds that the eluding lawful arrest exclusion violated public policy as set forth in the compulsory insurance law. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Easter, 374 Ark. 238, 287 S.W.3d 537 (2008).

Public Policy.

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer and against the insured and his son was appropriate because the exclusionary clause was unambiguous, not in violation of public policy, and applicable to the undisputed facts. Under subsection (a) of this section, public policy was established by the legislature, and motor-vehicle insurance policy exclusions did not violate public policy. Hurst v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 Ark. App. 657 (2011).

Rescission.

Courts may sever compulsory provisions of an insurance policy from noncompulsory provisions and permit rescission only as to noncompulsory provisions. Ferrell v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Cas. Co., 306 Ark. 533, 816 S.W.2d 593 (1991).

Cited: Cook v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 299 Ark. 520, 772 S.W.2d 614 (1989); Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).