I have a client semi driver who was rear-ended by a co-employee. Can he access his own UM even though he can’t assert a claim against his co-employee?

Answer: Yes. See:Barfield v. Barfield, 1987 OK 72, 742 P.2d 1107 andTorres v. Kansas City Fire and Marine Ins. Co.,1993 OK 32, 849 P.2d 407 (one whose claim against the tort-feasor is barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Act can nevertheless recover UM benefits.)

I have a UM case where the UM policies charge a separate premium for each policy but company says that they have a non-stackable clause. Is that valid in Oklahoma?

Answer: Here is the "Readers Digest" version from a CLE piece I wrote: The named insured or household member ("Class 1 insureds") may stack the coverage of vehicles in the household, whether those vehicles are insured under separate policies (Keel v. MFA, 1976 OK 86, 553 P.2d 153) or multiple vehicles are insured under a single policy (Richardson v. Allstate, 1980 OK 157, 619 P.2d 594, Lake v. Wright, 1982 OK 98, 657 P.2d 643). This is true where the company charges a separate premium for each vehicle insured.

Scott v. Cimarron Insurance Co., Inc., 1989 OK 26, 774 P.2d 456, holds that the insurance company may deny stacking under such policies. So far as how to tell if they are charging a per policy or per vehicle premium, the only sure fire way is to go to the State Insurance Commission and look at the rate filings to determine how the premiums are charged. What got Allstate in trouble was that they charged a "per policy" premium but then added a "multiple vehicle surcharge" if the policy insured more than one vehicle. This device caused (as John notes) about a doubling of the premium so the courts made them provide two coverages.

May an injured passenger in a single car wreck stack UM coverage under policy on mother of tortfeasor driver, who lives in the mother’s home. The passenger is not a relative or household member of the mother.

Answer: No. Persons insured only by reason of occupying an insured vehicle (called Class 2 insureds) may not stack UM coverage. This is true whether the owner's vehicles are insured under separate policies (Babcock v. Adkins, 1984 OK 84, 695 P.2d 1340) or the vehicle being occupied is one of several vehicles insured under a single policy (Rogers v. Goad, 1987 OK 59, 739 P.2d 519, Stanton v. American Mutual 1987 OK 118, 747 P.2d 945).
Under these cases, your client as a passenger in one insured car will not be an insured under the coverage of the non-involved car.

Does Medicare subrogation right attach to UM proceeds?

Answer: Yes. See: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396y(b)(2)(b)(III): "(iii) Action by United StatesIn order to recover payment made under this subchapter for an item or service, the United States may bring an action against any or all entities that are or were required or responsible (directly, as an insurer or self-insurer,. . . (iv) Subrogation rights
The United States shall be subrogated (to the extent of payment made under this subchapter for such an item or service) to any right under this subsection of an individual or any other entity to payment with respect to such item or service under a primary plan."

A grown son lives with his mother and is in a wreck with inadequate liability available from the adverse driver. Can he make a claim under his mother’s UM, even though his car is not on that policy?

Answer: It will depend on the language of the Mom's UM policy. See: Conner v. American Commerce Insurance, 2009 OK CIV APP 61, 216 P.3d 850: holds that a policy provision excluding from uninsured motorist (UM) coverage a named insured who is injured while occupying a vehicle he owns but which is not covered by UM coverage is a valid exclusion. See also: Morris v. America First Ins. Co., 2010 OK 35, 240 P.3d 661, confirming ruling in Conner but finding an exception where the insured in question (the son) has UM coverage under another policy.

Man dies in car wreck and is survived by common-law wife and three adult children from a previous marriage. He has UM which paid full UM benefits to common-law spouse. Was she entitled to full proceeds or are grown children also entitled to some of the UM?

Answer: Look at Forbes v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 OK CIV APP 113, 904 P.2d 159: In a wrongful death situation, UM benefits are to be distributed to those legally entitled to recover as defined by the wrongful death statute in accordance with each claimant's loss, despite conflicting UM policy provisions to the contrary. There, the policy provided under the "General Conditions" that benefits would be paid to the spouse. The Court of Civil Appeals held that, in spite of that provision, the UM went to all persons having a claim under 12 O.S. Sections 1053 and 1054. That would include your adult children.

Client hurt as a passenger in a car she did not own. Does she have to first use UM on vehicle she was riding in as a passenger before looking to her own UM?

Answer: No. The case on that is Mustain v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., et al., 1996 OK 98, 925 P.2d 533: UM insurance is primary as between the insured and UM insurer; UM insurer’s responsibility to insured cannot be conditioned on amount of other UM coverage.

I have a guy who was given a work truck that he is allowed to keep at his home and use 24/7. He was hurt in a wreck, but was not at work or in his work truck. Does he have a claim to the UM that is on the work truck?

Answer: No. The employee is insured under the employer’s policy only when occupying the employer’s insured vehicle. It usually comes up in the context of not being able to stack other vehicle’s coverage but the rule is found in:Stanton v. American Mutual, 1987 OK 118, 747 P.2d 945;Babcock v. Adkins, 1984 OK 84, 695 P.2d 1340 andRogers v. Goad, 1987 OK 59, 739 P.2d 519.

Insured with one vehicle, insured for UM buys another vehicle and adds it to the same policy, telling agent he wants the same coverage, including UM, for the second vehicle. Agent says since you have UM, it follows you and so agent doesn't add or charge a separate premium for the new vehicle. Insured loans second vehicle to a friend (not a resident relative), who is then hit by anuninsured driver. Company denies UM claim saying there’s no UM for the Friend because there’s no UM coverage on the second car. Is this a valid denial?

Answer: This is a tough one. Your best bet might be to sue to reform the policy. If I read your facts correctly, it wouldn’t have cost anything to put the new vehicle on the UM because the policy had a “per policy” rather than a “per vehicle” premium structure. This being so, arguably it was a mistake for the agent not to put UM on the newly acquired car. There is a good argument that constructive fraud will justify reformation where to fail to do so would cause the insurance company to benefit from a mistake on the part of its agent. See: Gentry v. American Motorist Ins. Co., 1994 OK 4, 867 P.2d 468: Constructive fraud will justify reforming an insurance policy to cover a loss not otherwise covered, where the agent led the insured to believe the loss in question would be covered, even though the agent had no intent to defraud the insured.

Is a carrier that sells comprehensive policy of insurance coverage only (not liability) required to get a UM waiver?

Answer: No. Only when the carrier writes a liability policy. See: Moser v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1986 OK 78, 731 P.2d 406 and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. NPIC, 2005 OK 40, 115 P.3d 856.