Elam v. First Unum Life Insurance

Elam v. First Unum Life Insurance, 57 S.W.3d 165 (2001)

Winning Party

James E. Elam

Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Key Issue

Breach of Insurance Contract

Case Type

CIVIL

Facts

The parties submitted conflicting extrinsic evidence, including medical affidavits and articles, to support their interpretations of 'mental illness.'

Elam elected coverage under the policy for disability due to his having bipolar affective disorder in 1994.

James E. Elam purchased a long-term-disability policy from First Unum Life Insurance Company through his employer, Smith Barney.

First Unum paid benefits to Elam from August 9, 1994, through August 9, 1996.

Elam suffers from bipolar affective disorder.

The insurance policy limits benefits for disability due to mental illness to 24 months.

Elam argued that bipolar affective disorder is a physical illness with a biological origin, treated with medication.

Elam filed suit against First Unum, contending that the term 'mental illness,' as used and defined in the policy, is ambiguous as it applies to his illness.

First Unum declined to pay further benefits due to a twenty-four-month policy limitation applicable to disability due to mental illness.

Explore this Case with AI

Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)

No credit card required

Key Holdings

The term 'mental illness' in the insurance policy is ambiguous only when considering extrinsic evidence, and the trial court erred in resolving the issue as a matter of law by granting summary judgment.

Citations

Elam v. First Unum Life Insurance, 57 S.W.3d 165, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 595, 346 Ark. 291 (2001)

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that summary judgment was improper because the meaning of 'mental illness' in the insurance policy was disputed and required consideration of extrinsic evidence. The court stated that when the meaning of a contract term depends on disputed extrinsic evidence, the determination of ambiguity is a question of fact for the jury. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a jury to determine whether the term 'mental illness' is ambiguous as it applies to Elam's bipolar affective disorder.

Outcome

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to First Unum and remanded the case for trial.

Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?

StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis

No credit card required

Explore More Legal AI Solutions

StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis

Stay In The Loop

Get weekly updates and case summaries

No credit card required

Search by Citation

Find a case by a citation

Follow StrongSuit on Social Media