Bradley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Megan Bradley, who was insured by State Farm, was injured in a motor-vehicle accident. State Farm paid $3844 in medical benefits to Bradley. State Farm then pursued a subrogation claim against the tortfeasor's insurer, Farmers Insurance. Bradley responded that the settlement with Farmers Insurance was not sufficient for her to be made whole. State Farm refused to release its subrogation claim. Bradley filed a petition for declaratory judgment and complaint for bad faith against State Farm and later filed an amended declaratory action to invalidate lien and complaint for injunctive relief, deceptive trade practices, bad faith and tortious interference with a contract. The circuit court dismissed count one of Bradley's amended pleading, finding (1) State Farm had a valid but unenforceable lien for sums paid to Bradley, (2) State Farm's right of subrogation arose at the time State Farm paid the medical benefits by operation of law, and (3) State Farm's right of subrogation is not enforceable until a subsequent judicial determination that Bradley was made whole by the settlement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the reasons set forth on the same day in Riley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 257
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-1221
Opinion Delivered
MEGAN BRADLEY,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
APPELLEE,
June 16, 2011
APPEAL FRO M THE BEN TO N
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CIV-2009-2477-2,
HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JIM GUNTER, Associate Justice
This is one of three companion cases decided this week. Although the arguments on
appeal are identical in each case, the facts slightly differ. Based on the analysis and reasoning
explained in Riley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2011 Ark. 256, ___ S.W.3d
___, we reverse and remand.
Appellant Megan Bradley was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 27, 2007,
when her vehicle was struck by one driven by a third party. Bradley was insured at the time
by Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and the third party was insured
by Farmers Insurance. On May 31, 2007, Bradley’s attorney sent a letter to State Farm
regarding medical pay, under-insured, or uninsured motorist coverage. Subsequently, State
Farm paid $3844.39 in medical benefits to Bradley.
On July 29, 2008, State Farm sent a letter to Farmers “[i]n order to assist . . . in
evaluating and processing the subrogation claim [it] was asserting.” Bradley’s counsel sent a
Cite as 2011 Ark. 257
letter to State Farm on November 10, 2008, to inform it that Bradley was close to settling a
liability claim with Farmers for $14,000. The letter stated that “the amounts of the settlements
we have currently been able to negotiate with Farmer’s Insurance on the liability claim are
not sufficient for our client to be made whole.” Bradley asked State Farm to release its
subrogation claim, else she would petition the court to determine the validity of the
subrogation claim and file a bad faith complaint against State Farm. On November 19, 2008,
State Farm responded and stated that “[a]fter careful review of our file, we must respectfully
deny your request that we release our subrogation claim in the amount of $3,844.39.”
Thereafter, Bradley’s counsel asked State Farm for an explanation of the figures it used to
determine that Bradley had been made whole. State Farm responded by letter dated
December 8, 2008, stating that “[t]he amount of your settlement agreement clearly shows that
the liability limits of the at-fault carrier were adequate enough to settle Ms. Bradley’s injury
claim as well as reimburse State Farm’s medical payment subrogation lien.” On February 16,
2009, State Farm sent two letters—one to Bradley’s attorney and one to Farmers. In the letter
to Bradley, State Farm made clear that it intended to seek recovery for the amounts it had
paid for medical benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-207. In the letter to Farmers,
State Farm notified the third-party insurer that it was claiming subrogation and requested
“your cooperation in settling this matter.”
On August 13, 2009, Bradley filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Complaint
for Bad Faith against State Farm in Benton County Circuit Court, alleging a failure by State
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 257
Farm to establish an enforceable subrogation interest, breach of contract, and violation of the
Unfair Trade Practices Act. State Farm answered on September 14, 2009, denying that it had
filed a lien, but admitting that it had asserted its right to subrogation. It asked that the petition
and complaint be dismissed and that it be granted its subrogation for the amounts paid
pursuant to the terms of the policy.1 Attached to the answer were several exhibits, including
several of the letters referenced above.
On January 26, 2010, Bradley filed a First Amended Declaratory Action to Invalidate
Lien and Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Deceptive Trade Practices, Bad Faith and Tortious
Interference with a Contract. In her amended pleading, Bradley alleged that State Farm filed
its lien or notice of subrogation with the third party carrier prior to paying any medical bills
and without any determination that Bradley had been made whole. Bradley claimed that State
Farm took “no action against [her] in a court of competent jurisdiction to ascertain whether
or not [her] recovery from Farmers made [her] whole. . . . [and] State Farm’s right to
subrogation cannot yet exist.” Bradley asserted that State Farm had the burden of proving that
she had been made whole and that asserting its subrogation rights prior to that determination
was premature and in violation of Arkansas law. State Farm answered, admitting that it had
asserted its subrogation rights when Bradley settled with Farmers after having made a
determination that Bradley had been made whole. State Farm denied that it was required to
1
At no time was the policy attached to any pleading in this case; therefore, it is not a
part of our record on appeal.
3
Cite as 2011 Ark. 257
seek a judicial determination before asserting subrogation rights and argued that it was
Bradley’s burden to establish that she had not been made whole by the settlement to discharge
its subrogation rights. In its prayer for relief, State Farm asked the circuit court to dismiss the
injunctive relief claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; to
dismiss the remaining portions of the declaratory action; to grant State Farm its subrogation
costs, less fees paid to Bradley’s counsel; and to award it attorney’s fees, costs, and any other
relief to which it was entitled.
The court entered a joint order on June 7, 2010, noting that the plaintiffs had the
burden to prove that they had not been made whole and that State Farm’s liens were valid but
not enforceable until a “made whole” determination had been made. Thereafter, the court
entered a judgment on August 16, 2010, dismissing count one of Bradley’s amended pleading.
The court found that State Farm had a valid but unenforceable lien for sums paid to Bradley
under the medical payment portion of her automobile insurance policy; that State Farm’s right
of subrogation arose at the time State Farm paid the medical benefits by operation of law
(both equitable and statutory) and contract; and that State Farm’s right of subrogation is not
enforceable until a subsequent judicial determination regarding whether the insured was made
whole by the settlement. The judgment included a Rule 54(b) certificate, and Bradley filed
a timely notice of appeal.
Bradley argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing count one of her complaint
because an insurer’s right to subrogation does not arise until the insured has been made whole.
4
Cite as 2011 Ark. 257
We agree, and for the reasons set forth this same day in Riley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., 2011 Ark. 256, __ S.W.3d ___, we reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
