I have a client from Florida who was in an accident in Oklahoma. Oklahoma driver didn’t have insurance and we made claim on UM. UM wants credit for med pay paid per Bohannan as credits are allowed in Florida. My argument is that Bohannan upheld Pate v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co which made set offs or credits against public policy in Oklahoma so it falls outside the Bohannan case.
Answer: You are not wrong. Bohanan v. Allstate, 1991 OK 64, 820 P.2d 787, reconciles Pate v. MFA, 1982 OK CIV APP 36, 649 P.2d 809 (Oklahoma law applies to invalidate med-pay subrogation, a result contrary to the law of Arkansas, where the policy was issued) , with Rhody v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 771 F.2d 1416 (10th Cir. 1985), (Texas law applies to prevent stacking where policy was issued in Texas but loss occurred in Oklahoma) on the ground that 36 O.S. Sec. 6092 purports on its face to apply to any med-pay existing in the state (wherever issued) while the Oklahoma UM statute purports to apply only to policies issued in Oklahoma. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al. v. The State Board for Property and Casualty Rates, 1981 OK 153, 637 P.2d 1251, treats subrogation and set-off the same and forbids set-off of med-pay against UM because of Sec. 6092. Your opponent is just wrong about their interpretation of Bohanan.