Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22-104 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Recent Development: Arkansas Constitutional Law - Inventory Exception, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 753.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

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

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Oliver, None for the Road: Addressing the Problem of Uninsured Vehicles and Drivers in Arkansas, 21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 167.

Chamberlin & Holt, Why Arkansas Should Overturn its Anti-Stacking Precedent: A Look at Aggregating Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage, 21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 413.

Annual Survey of Case Law, Criminal Law. 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 698.

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).

This section requires an officer to impound only the vehicle's license plate, not the car, in the event a driver is unable to present proof of insurance, and since Ark. R. Crim. P. 12.6 did not authorize the impoundment of a vehicle, but merely the search after a car had been properly impounded or retained, without an independent and proper basis for the impoundment itself, the authorization to search pursuant to that rule was inapplicable. State v. Kelley, 362 Ark. 636, 210 S.W.3d 93 (2005).

Failure to Present Proof of Insurance.

This section does not provide authority to impound the vehicle of an operator who cannot present proof of insurance; the section only calls for an officer to impound the vehicle's license plate. Howe v. State, 72 Ark. App. 466, 39 S.W.3d 467 (2001).

Circuit court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of inadequate insurance during an accident, where the document he provided at the scene of the accident did not reflect coverage on the day of the collision, and the testimony established that defendant's policy had not been renewed by the date of the collision. Gill v. State, 2015 Ark. 421, 474 S.W.3d 77 (2015).

Named Driver Exclusion.

There was no violation of public policy where the appellant obtained a motor vehicle liability insurance policy which named his sister as a listed driver and which also excluded himself from coverage. Jordan v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co., 71 Ark. App. 372, 32 S.W.3d 755 (2000).

Liabilities of Insurance Carriers.

Insurance carrier and insureds did not agree that the insurance carrier could rid itself of the liabilities assumed by it, and contracted for by the insureds, by the carrier filing a lawsuit in federal court and dumping the policy limits into the registry of that court, thus abandoning the insureds. If the insurance carrier had intended that it have that option, it could have said so in plain and unmistakable terms so the insureds, and others like them, could determine whether they wanted to do business with that insurance carrier, or some other carrier, that would provide them with more meaningful protection. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Davis, 753 F. Supp. 1458 (W.D. Ark. 1990).

An automobile insurance carrier may not shed itself of the duties which it contracted to provide its insured by paying the policy limits into the registry of the court. In so doing, it has not “exhausted” its limits by the payment of claims for which the insureds are “legally responsible because of an auto accident” as required by the terms of the very policy issued and written by the carrier. Included in those things that the insureds hired the carrier to do for them is the defense of expensive lawsuits necessary to determine whether they are “legally responsible” for particular claims made against them. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Davis, 753 F. Supp. 1458 (W.D. Ark. 1990).

Probable Cause of Traffic Violation.

Lack of insurance information in the Vehicle Insurance Database was sufficient to provide the officer with probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred, and it was irrelevant that defendant may have subsequently produced documents showing that he had insurance. The search of defendant's vehicle did not exceed the scope of the valid traffic stop, because the officer learned that defendant had a suspended driver's license and an active warrant for his arrest when the officer checked defendant's information as part of the traffic stop. Small v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 80, 543 S.W.3d 516 (2018).

Circuit court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, as (1) the initial traffic stop, which occurred after the officer ran defendant's tags through the Vehicle Insurance Database, was not invalid because the lack of insurance information in the database was sufficient to provide the officer with probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred; and (2) the purpose of the stop had not concluded by the time the officer deployed the drug dog since defendant had not produced his insurance paperwork and the encounter lasted less than eight minutes. Cagle v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 69, 571 S.W.3d 47 (2019).

Public Policy.

When a case involves only the insured and the insurer, and the loss involves the insured's property, there is no public policy reason to hold that the insurance company's common law right to rescission has been abrogated. Ferrell v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Cas. Co., 306 Ark. 533, 816 S.W.2d 593 (1991).

Owner of a motorcycle was not civilly liable to a car driver for injuries sustained by the car driver when the owner of the motorcycle allowed a third party operator to drive the motorcycle, which was not insured. Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171, 200 S.W.3d 411 (2004).

Cited: Stevens v. State, 319 Ark. 640, 893 S.W.2d 773 (1995); Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Easter, 374 Ark. 238, 287 S.W.3d 537 (2008).