IV. UNINSURED MOTORIST CASE CHRONOLOGY
UM = Uninsured Motorist. ORS = Overruled by statute. ORC = Overruled by case law. C = Current. H = Historical interest only.
1960 H Boughton v. Farmers, 354 P.2d 1085: "Arbitration", "no action" clause invalid; judgment against UM binds insurer.
1964 H Holt v. Bell, 392 P.2d 361: Can't join UM and insurer. ORC
1969 H Johnson v. USAA, 462 P.2d 664: Insurer not bound by judgment against UM where policy so provided and permitted action against company. ORC
1972 H Lund v. State Farm, 342 F.Supp. 917 (W.D.Okla.): No recovery under UM where tort-feasor had required minimum limits (5/10), but aggregate limit was divided among five claimants thus reducing recovery to $2,000. ORS
C Markham v. State Farm, 464 F.2d 703 (10th Cir.): No recovery under UM on claim of mother against unemancipated daughter - "not legally entitled to recover." (Doubtful as present authority due to Unah v. Martin, 1984 OK 2, 676 P.2d 1366, and Karlson v. City of Oklahoma City, 1985 OK 45, 711 P.2d 72.)
1974 H High v. Southwestern, 1974 OK 35, 520 P.2d 662: Default judgment against hit and run "John Doe" not binding on insurer. Direct action against insurer permitted.
1975 H Associated Indemnity v. Cannon, 1975 OK 87, 536 P.2d 920: Permits direct action against insurer; partially overruled Holt.
1976 ORS Cothren v. Emcasco, 1976 OK 137, 555 P.2d 1037: "Occupying owned but uninsured car" clause invalid.
C Keel v. MFA, 1976 OK 86, 553 P.2d 153: UM "stacking," liability, and damages determination by: (1) direct action against insurer; (2) joinder of insurer and UM; and (3) action against UM with notice to insurer permitted.
H Simmons v. Hartford, 1975 OK 155, 543 P.2d 1384: Follows Lund v. State Farm. No UM recovery where tort-feasor had required 5/10 liability policy but multiple claims against aggregate limits reduced insured's recovery below $5,000. ORS
1977 C Biggs v. State Farm, 1977 OK 135, 569 P.2d 430: Invalidates "physical contact" requirement for "hit and run" coverage.
H Hicks v. State Farm, 1977 OK 150, 568 P.2d 629: Insured knowingly waived UM coverage where insurer sent notice explaining coverage. ORC
C Irvin v. Allstate, 436 F.Supp. 575 (W.D.Okla. 1977): suit against one’s own insurance company to recover UM coverage is not a “direct action” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1332(c).
1978 C Calhoun v. Calhoun, 482 F.Supp. 347 (E.D.Okla.): UM claim not "separate and independent" from claim against resident UM carrier so as to be removable to federal court.
1979 H Mid-Continent v. Theus, 1979 OK 23, 592 P.2d 519: No UM recovery if UM limits same as adverse vehicle's liability limits. ORS
1980 C MFA v. Hankins, 1980 OK 66, 610 P.2d 785: Where accident occurred before the 1976 amendment, underinsured provisions of 1976 statute do not apply to affect coverage where policy was not issued or renewed after effective date of 1976 amendment.
C McKinley v. Prudential, 1980 OK 29, 619 P.2d 1269: Where the accident happened after the 1976 amendment, but the policy had not been issued or renewed after 1976 amendment, that amendment did not apply to provide underinsured coverage.
C Richardson v. Allstate, 1980 OK 157, 619 P.2d 594: "Stacking" permitted where multiple vehicles are insured under one policy.
1981 C Aetna v. State Board of Prop. & Cas. Rates, 1981 OK 153, 637 P.2d 1251: Med pay offset against UM invalid. No subrogation for medical bills paid under UM.
1982 C Chambers v. Walker, 1982 OK 128, 653 P.2d 931: Insurer may not offset workers' comp against UM.
C Lake v. Wright, 1982 OK 98, 657 P.2d 643: "Limit of liability" clause unenforceable and void as against public policy.
C Porter v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 1982 OK 23, 643 P.2d 302: Settlement with (and release of) the tort-feasor voids UM coverage.
C Tidmore v. Fullman, 1982 OK 73, 646 P.2d 1278: Where plaintiff sues the tort-feasor and his own UM carrier, case should be submitted to jury against only tort-feasor, not UM carrier.
1983 C Heavner v. Farmers, 1983 OK 51, 663 P.2d 730: Passenger may collect owner's liability and UM limits.
C Shepard v. Farmers, 1983 OK 103, 678 P.2d 250: Policy definition of "insured" which excludes resident relative who owns own car not void as against public policy.
C Uptegraft v. Home Insurance, 1983 OK 41, 662 P.2d 681: Failure to sue tort-feasor within two years does not bar UM suit within five years.
1984 C Brown v. USAA, 1984 OK 55, 684 P.2d 1195: Hit and run coverage applies where owner, but not driver, of vehicle which leaves scene is identified; insured has no duty to ascertain identity of hit and run driver; insured has burden of proving a known driver was uninsured, but may do so by negative proof.
C Babcock v. Adkins, 1984 OK 84, 695 P.2d 1340: Occupants of one of several vehicles not entitled to stack coverage on other vehicles covered under separate policies.
C Bill Hodges Truck Company v. Humphrey, 1984 OK CIV APP 55, 704 P.2d 94: no UM offset against workers' compensation recovery.
1985 C Frey v. Independence Fire & Casualty, 1985 OK 25, 698 P.2d 17: Covenant not to sue tort-feasor barred UM recovery.
H Hibbs v. Farmers, 1985 OK 77, 725 P.2d 1232: Settlement with primary UM carrier for less than limits bars recovery against excess UM carrier. ORC
C Karlson v. City of Oklahoma City, 1985 OK 45, 711 P.2d 72: UM pays damages above Governmental Tort Claims Act limits.
C Rhody v. State Farm, 771 F.2d 1416: Texas law applied to UM stacking where policy issued in Texas on car garaged in and accident occurred in Oklahoma.
C State Farm v. Wendt, 1985 OK 75, 708 P.2d 581: Policy excluding from definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" a vehicle defined in the policy as an insured motor vehicle was void where liability coverage was excluded by a "named insured" exclusion.
1986 C Moser v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1986 OK 78, 731 P.2d 406: UM offer not required on umbrella liability policy.
1987 C Barfield v. Barfield, 1987 OK 72, 742 P.2d 1107: Insured injured by negligence of fellow employee driver could recover his own UM.
H Beauchamp v. Southwestern, 1987 OK 96, 746 P.2d 673: Adding vehicle to policy constituted new policy requiring new UM offer, reversing in part, Hicks v. State Farm (1977). ORS
C Buzzard v. McDanel, 1987 OK 28, 736 P.2d 157: Improper to bifurcate from bad faith case question of UM tort-feasor's liability and damages.
C Farmers v. Thomas, 1987 OK 84, 743 P.2d 1080: Divorced husband who was named insured had no insurable interest in car awarded wife in divorce so passenger had no UM claim against husband's policy.
C Houston v. National General, 817 F.2d 83: Fact question existed whether mother of insured's grandchild was covered as a "ward."
C Prideaux v. Allstate, 1987 OK CIV APP 72, 753 P.2d 935: no passenger UM stacking; UM offer adequate; no written rejection of UM required where UM written, but for less than liability limits.
C Rogers v. Goad, 1987 OK 59, 739 P.2d 519: Employee occupying employer's vehicle could not stack under employer's policy.
C Russell v. American States, 813 F.2d 306: UM vehicle includes insured vehicle being occupied; passenger covered under non-owner driver's UM policy which insures vehicle driven by insured.
C Stanton v. American Mutual, 1987 OK 118, 747 P.2d 945: Employee occupying employer's vehicle could not stack under employer's fleet policy.
1988 C Everaard v. Hartford, 842 F.2d 1186: The insured need not join or sue the tort-feasor in order to recover UM. The insurer's insistence upon this constituted bad faith.
C Mann v. Farmers, 1988 OK 58, 761 P.2d 460: A UM rejection is required only where the policy affords no UM coverage - not where UM limits are written but in an amount less than liability limits; a Shepard v. Farmers clause excluding an insured who owns a vehicle from the definition of insured family member was inapplicable where the separately owned vehicle was insured under the policy in question.
C Moon v. Guarantee Insurance Co., 1988 OK 85, 764 P.2d 1331: A car renter is the insured who must accept or reject UM coverage on a rental car's liability policy; a rejection by the car rental company is inadequate, since the rental company's employees are the insurance company's agents.
C Nunn v. Stewart, 1988 OK 51, 756 P.2d 6: The insured could recover interest on a UM award in excess of policy limits, but only from the date liability became fixed.
H Silver v. Slusher, 1988 OK 53, 770 P.2d 878: The insurance company has no duty to make an explanatory offer of UM coverage. (Legislatively reversed by the 1990 amendment to §3636.)
1989 C Aetna v. Craig, 1989 OK 43, 771 P.2d 212: A class 1 insured may stack UM coverage under a commercial, fleet policy; punitive damage coverage under UM contravenes public policy.
C Cofer v. Morton, 1989 OK 159, 784 P.2d 67: The controlling UM statute is the one in effect at the last policy renewal before the accident; under the 1976 underinsured statute, the tort-feasor's liability limits are to be compared to the stacked UM limits, to determine underinsured status; if one of the named insureds is aware of the right to buy UM equal to the liability limits, failure to offer increased limits does not effect coverage.
C Davis v. Choate, 1989 OK CIV APP 29, 787 P.2d 465: Summary judgment for insurance company was inappropriate where the insurance company charged a "per policy" premium but the record did not show that the insured had a choice and elected to take coverage which could not be stacked. ORC
C Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred, 1989 OK 107, 777 P.2d 932: Hit-and-run coverage may apply to random shooting from a motor vehicle.
H Plaster v. State Farm, 1989 OK 167, 791 P.2d 813: Each named insured must reject UM coverage; rejection by wife did not bar claim for child's death. ORS (Legislatively reversed by the 1990 amendment to §3636.)
C Roberts v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 1989 OK CIV APP 92, 790 P.2d 1121: An insured may sue his UM insurer without suing the tort-feasor; the UM carrier is not entitled to credit for the tort-feasor's liability limit, but must seek subrogation against the tort-feasor.
C Rush v. Travelers Indem. Co., 891 F.2d 267 (10th Cir.): An Oklahoma insured, involved in an Arkansas accident was entitled to stack, under Oklahoma law, but was entitled to the higher Arkansas minimum limits, pursuant to a policy provision to that effect.
C Scott v. Cimarron, 1989 OK 26, 774 P.2d 456: An insurance company which charges a "per policy" UM premium may deny stacking, where it clearly advised the insured of that result and gave the insured the option to select other coverage.
C State Farm v. Greer, 1989 OK 110, 777 P.2d 941: A policy provision excluding from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" a government vehicle was void.
C Stucky v. Long, 1989 OK CIV APP 75, 783 P.2d 500: Whether an injury is accidental or intentional is to be viewed from the insured's viewpoint, not the assailant's; a beating administered after a traffic confrontation did not arise from the use of the vehicle and was not covered by UM.
C Welch v. Armer, 1989 OK 117, 776 P.2d 847: As to an accident before the 1986 Amendment to 36 O.S. §2012, a claimant must first exhaust his UM coverage before claiming against the Guaranty Fund; an insolvent liability company's insured is protected against a UM subrogation claim, but only to the extent of his liability coverage with the insolvent insurer.
1990 C Marshall v. Allstate, 1990 OK CIV APP 100, 805 P.2d 689: Beauchamp v. Southwestern (requiring a new offer of UM coverage with addition of a vehicle to a policy) will not be applied retroactively; one not a named insured under a UM policy may sue to reform the policy to be named a named insured.
C Mellenberger v. Sweeney, 1990 OK CIV APP 85, 800 P.2d 747: A UM insurer is liable for pre-judgment interest, but only on the part of the judgment exceeding the liability coverage.
C Merrill v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, 747 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla.): Section 3637, exempting from UM requirements motor carriers, whose employees are covered by Workers' Compensation, applied to a carrier which carried its own goods, as well as those of others.
C Niemeyer v. USF & G, 1990 OK 32, 789 P.2d 1318: Liability insurer owed no duty to UM insurance cmpany and had no privilege claim in the insured's suit for tortious interference with contract, based on supplying false derogatory information in claim file.
C Safeco v. Sanders, 1990 OK 129, 803 P.2d 688: Insureds' murders by being burned to death in car arose out of the use of the car and had a causal connection to the use of the car, but were not covered, since the killers' act of burning the car was not a transportation use of the car.
C Willard v. Kelley, 1990 OK 129, 803 P.2d 1124: Summary judgment precluded where differing inferences can be drawn from undisputed facts; whether an injury is accidental is viewed from the eyes of the injured party; and “occupying” a vehicle includes alighting from and entering into the vehicle.
1991 C Bohannan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1991 OK 64, 820 P.2d 787: Out-of-state policy will be interpreted under law of place where made, unless foreign provisions are contrary to Oklahoma public policy or other state has more significant relationship with the subject matter or the parties.
C, ORC Buzzard v. Farmers, 1991 OK 127, 824 P.2d 1105: UM insurer may not insist liability limits be exhausted before it must pay; UM carrier owes only the amount of the insured's damages over the liability limits (this dictum was overruled in 1998 by Burch v. Allstate, 1998 OK 129, 977 P.2d 1057); the UM insurer's failure to pay a claim will waive subrogation.
C Economy Fire & Cas. Co. v. Faulkner, 790 F.Supp. 1082 (W.D.Okla.), aff'd w/o opinion 951 F.2d 1258 (10th Cir. 1991): Existence of multiple claimants with claims arising out of a single wrongful death, do not trigger multiple "per person" liability and UM insurance limits but rather the limit applicable is a single, per-person limit.
H Kinder v. Okla. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 1991 OK CIV APP 53, 813 P.2d 546: Fact question existed whether insured could stack where the insureds disputed whether they had been given the option to pay extra for UM coverage which could be stacked. ORC
C Rose v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1991 OK CIV APP 124, 821 P.2d 1077: A mother could recover UM benefits based on the negligence of her unemancipated minor child, even though she could not have recovered against him, due to parent-child immunity.
C Sexton v. Continental Cas. Co., 1991 OK 84, 816 P.2d 1135: An insurer waives its right to UM subrogation by denying coverage and cannot complain of the insured's liability settlement.
C Thrasher v. Act-Fast Labor Pool, Inc., 1991 OK 12, 806 P.2d 640: No subrogation of Workers' Compensation against UM; suit against UM carrier does not require filing election in Workers' Compensation Court.
C White v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 1991 OK CIV APP 131, 823 P.2d 953: All survivors in a death action had to share the "per person" UM limit and were not each entitled to a per person limit up to the aggregate limit for all persons injured.
1992 C Davis v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 171, 852 P.2d 780: UM limits could not be stacked where doing so would cause the stacked UM limits to exceed the unstacked liability limits.
C Flitton v. Equity Fire and Cas. Co., 1992 OK 2, 824 P.2d 1132: UM coverage for a "family member," defined as a household resident related to the insured "by blood, marriage or adoption" included the named insured's step-brother.
C Hardin v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 42, 839 P.2d 206: A single death gives rise to only one "per person" limit, no matter how many survivors suffer damage.
H Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 106, 838 P.2d 535: An Arkansas policy defining "uninsured" car to exclude the insured car violated Oklahoma public policy so Oklahoma law applied; disapproved by Bernal v. Charter County Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 OK 28, 209 P.3d 309.
C Provident Life & Accid. Ins. Co. v. Ridenour, 1992 OK CIV APP 93, 838 P.2d 530: Health insurance company not entitled to subrogation against UM. Distinguished by Reeds v. Honorable Thomas S. Walker/NAICO v. Reeds, 2006 OK 43, 157 P.3d 100.
C Robertson v. USF & G, 1992 OK 113, 836 P.2d 1294: Insurers waived their objection to settlement with the tort-feasor by failing to take an adequate rejection of UM coverage and leaving UM coverage out of the policy.
1993 C Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 168, 869 P.2d 852: Substitution of limits does not entitle the insurer to a credit against UM limits and subrogation against liability coverage.
C Littlefield v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 1993 OK 102, 857 P.2d 65: Derivative claims trigger only a single UM limit.
H Phillips v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 27, 848 P.2d 70: UM policy pays pre-judgment interest over limits but only from date liability is established. [Reversed in Carney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 877 P.2d 1113 (Okla. 1994).]
C Phillips v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 199, 867 P.2d 1361: No error where court denied insured leave to amend to add a bad faith claim after the time permitted for amendment in pretrial order and after court had ordered UM claim and liability claim bifurcated pursuant to Tidmore v. Fullman.
C Roby v. Bailey, 1993 OK CIV APP 93, 856 P.2d 1013: Oklahoma public policy did not require an Arkansas policy to afford underinsured motorist coverage where the policy did not afford that coverage under Arkansas law.
C Torres v. Kansas City Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 1993 OK 32, 849 P.2d 407: Employee occupying employer’s vehicle entitled to UM coverage under employer’s vehicle policy, even where accident due to negligence of a fellow employee; the UM insurer is obligated to pay pre-judgment interest.
C Townsend v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,, 1993 OK 119, 860 P.2d 236: Class 2 insured has standing to bring a bad faith action against the UM carrier.
C Williams v. Preferred Risk Group Ins. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 193, 867 P.2d 485: A murder committed by a passenger on the driver of a car was not covered by UM.
1994 C Assalone v. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 64, 908 P.2d 812: UM carrier may not condition payment on insured honoring request to sue tort-feasor.
C Carney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1994 OK 72, 877 P.2d 1113: Interest is recoverable from time of filing a UM suit, but only up to the UM policy limit, overruling Phillips v. State Farm.
H Coker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 62, 877 P.2d 1175: Allstate could deny stacking by charging a “per policy” premium. Reversed: Kramer and Wilson v. Allstate.
H Fields v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 847 F.Supp. 160 (W.D.Okla. 1993), aff’d, 18 F.3d 831 (10th Cir.): Insurance company was not required to make statutory UM offer with first renewal after the 1990 amendment to 36 O.S. §3636H but could wait until after a “phase-in” period; the equitable rule that an insurer may not get subrogation from its insured’s recovery until the insured had been fully compensated does not apply to contractual subrogation. Reversed, as to the subrogation issue by Equity Fire and Cas. Co. v. Youngblood, 1996 OK 123, 927 P.2d 572.
C Kramer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 146, 909 P.2d 128: A premium-pricing scheme which charged about twice as much for a policy insuring two or more cars than for a single car resulted in a multiple premium and stacking two limits.
C McSorley v. The Hertz Corp., 1994 OK 120, 885 P.2d 1343: A self-insured car rental company need not offer its customers UM.
C Ouellette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1994 OK 79, 918 P.2d 1363: An insured who is not the next-of-kin may not pursue a claim for wrongful death against his UM carrier.
H Perkins v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 151, 889 P.2d 1262: Failure of the insurance company to make a statutory form offer of UM equal to the liability coverage results in UM limits equal to liability limits. ORC [Overruled by May v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. Of Pittsburg, Pa., 1996 OK 52, 918 P.2d 43.]
C Smith v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 1994 OK 5, 867 P.2d 1260: The U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause required Oklahoma to follow an Arkansas state court declaratory judgment applying Oklahoma law, even where the result would violate Oklahoma public policy.
C Vincent v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 24, 874 P.2d 65: Insured who settled with claimed tort-feasor could not recover from UM carrier on theory there existed a fact question whether the claimed tort-feasor or a hit-and-run motorist caused the wreck.
C Wickham v. Equity Fire and Casualty Company, 1994 OK CIV APP 148, 889 P.2d 1258. holds that a person fixing a flat is considered “occupying” the vehicle for UM purposes.
1995 C Boyer v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 OK CIV APP 102, 902 P.2d 83: Running of statute of limitations on claim against tort-feasordid not trigger UM claim, where damages did not trigger UM claim, where damages did not exceed tort-feasor’s liability limit.
C Breakfield v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 OK 139, 910 P.2d 991: Cannot stack UM where only one premium paid.
C Burwell v. Oklahoma Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 OK CIV APP 50, 896 P.2d 1195: An offer to one of two spouses named as insured under a UM policy is sufficient to support rejection of higher-than-minimum UM limits; an uninsured motorist carrier owed pre-judgment interest that is calculated by totaling simple interest on the ultimate recovery at the rate applicable for each year the suit is pending.
C 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.
C Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 1995 OK 97, 904 P.2d 83: Evidence warranted reformation to make UM limits the same as liability limits, where evidence was that the insured had asked for increased UM limits.
C Kratz v. Kratz and Prudential General ins. Co., 1995 OK 63, 905 P.2d 753: Hospital lien does not attach to UM proceeds paid by the patient’s own insurer. OR by statute effective 11/1/2012 per 42 O.S. §. 43.
C Leader Nat. Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 901 F.Supp. 316 (W.D.Okla.): Oklahoma choice of laws rules would apply Oklahoma law to a policy issued in Kansas to Oklahoma citizen, resident in Kansas, where wreck occurred in Oklahoma.
C Wise v. Wollery, 1995 OK CIV APP 69, 904 P.2d 151: Workers’ compensation insurer had no subrogation right against UM, even though it was the employer’s UM.
C Withrow v. Pickard, 1995 OK 120, 905 P.2d 800: UM carrier is not required to offer coverage which can be stacked.
H Woods v. Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 13, 890 P.2d 1367: Hospital lien attaches to UM benefits. [Overruled by Kratz v. Kratz.]
1996 H Brashier v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 1996 OK 86, 925 P.2d 20: Insured who prevails in UM bad faith case may recover attorney fees. Overruled by Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau.
C Byus v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 1996 OK 25, 912 P.2d 845: Summary judgment improper where conflicting inferences exist as to whether drive-by shooting arose from use of car, and was supervening cause, and death was caused by car’s operator.
C Carlos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 1996 OK CIV APP 158, 935 P.2d 1182: An insurance company is not obligated to pay UM benefits where the insured let the time run on a Governmental tort Claims Act (GTCA) claim with damages less than the liability limits imposed by the GTCA.
C Dennis v. Harding Glass Co., 1996 OK CIV APP 105; 929 P.2d 301: Workers’ compensation carrier not entitled to set-off of employer-provided UM against workers’ comp.
C Equity Fire and Cas. Co. v. Youngblood, 1996 OK 123, 927 P.2d 572: The “make whole” rule precludes subrogation of ERISA benefits against UM where the effect would be to cause the insured to be less than fully compensated or made whole.
C Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Stark, 1996 OK CIV APP 53, 924 P.2d 798: Subrogated UM carrier stands in insured’s shoes and has two years to file subrogation suit against tort-feasor.
C Gray v. Midland Risk Insurance Co., 1996 OK 111, 925 P.2d 560: Reduced liability coverage for non-designated driver, also reduces UM.
C Martin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 1996 OK 55, 918 P.2d 49: No UM recovery where no legal negligence. (Child puts car in gear).
C May v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, Pa., 1996 OK 52, 918 P.2d 43, (opinion following certification) 84 F.3d 1342 (10th Cir. 1996): Effect of insurance company’s failure to offer UM limits equal to liability limits is coverage in amount of the $10,000 minimum compulsory insurance law limits, not the liability limits. [Overrules Perkins v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 151, 889 P.2d 1262.]
C 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.
C Nichols v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 948 F.Supp. 988 (W.D.Okla. 1996): Murrah Building bombing victims are not entitled to UM.
C O’Brien v. Dorrough and Equity Fire and Cas. Co., 1996 OK CIV APP 25, 928 P.2d 322: A named driver exclusion excludes UM coverage.
C Pentz v. Davis, et al., 1996 OK 89, 927 P.2d 538: An “other insurance” clause does not permit an insurance company to delay payment until another insurance company pays.
C Phillips v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 F.3d 1535 (10th Cir.): UM carrier required to pay part of insured’s attorney fees and expenses for recovering subrogation.
C Reeder v. American Economy Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 892 (10th Cir.1996): Stacking not permitted to recover more than insured’s damages.
C Walker v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 83 F.3d 349 (10th Cir.1996): No UM coverage where insured shot outside car while fleeing car.
C Weatherly v. Flourney, 1996 OK CIV APP 109, 929 P.2d 296: A tort-feasor may not set-off damages owed the injured party by any amount the injured party receives from his/her own UM policy; even where the UM carrier pays its UM limit and waives subrogation.
C Whitmire v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 1996 OK CIV APP 115, 928 P.2d 959: UM coverage does not apply when an insured is abducted, restrained in her car, then set on fire and burned in the car.
C Wilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1996 OK 22, 912 P.2d 345: A policy for which a premium approximately twice that for a single vehicle is charged when multiple vehicles are insured is able to stack the coverage twice.
1997 C Boerstler v. Donald Hoover Truck Insurance Exchange Co., 1997 OK 106, 943 P.2d 614: Failure to make a written rejection of UM coverage results in UM coverage at the statutory minimum of $10,000.
C Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mosby, et al., 1997 OK 93, 943 P.2d 593: The statute of limitation on an insurance company’s subrogation interest is the same as its insured’s SOL against the tort-feasor and begins to run on the date of the injury.
C Kavanaugh v. Maryland Ins. Co., 1997 OK CIV APP 41, 943 P.2d 629: Insured can recover damages from UM carrier where SOL has run on tort claim and damages exceed tort-feasor’s liability limit. (Overruled by Burch v. Allstate.)
C Kinder v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 OK 104, 943 P.2d 617: Insurance company is not required to offer UM coverage which can be stacked.
C Mayer v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 1997 OK 67, 944 P.2d 288: Murrah building bombing victims are not entitled to UM.
C State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 975 F.Supp. 1435 (W.D.Okla. 1997): Beating in motel parking lot, where no car is being used, does not trigger UM coverage.
1998 C Burch v. Allstate, 1998 OK 129, 977 P.2d 1057: UM carrier is liable for first dollar coverage, not only amount over tort-feasor’s liability coverage.
C Fugate v. Mooney and Shelter Ins. Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 48, 958 P.2d 818: Attorney’s lien is senior and is to be paid first out of UM proceeds, balance goes to insured; all other lienholders are paid proportionately out of liability proceeds; and unsecured creditors get none of first $50,000 of personal bodily injury recovery but attorney must “marshall assets” and take all fee out of UM to free up liability to pay lienholders.
C Newberry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 139, 963 P.2d 632: city-owned vehicle is not an uninsured motor vehicle within meaning of § 3636 where city is self-insured.
ORC Smith v. American Fidelity Insurance Companies, 1998 OK CIV APP 70, 963 P.2d 16.: UM carrier liable only for amount UM coverage exceeds tort-feasor’s available coverage. (Overruled by Burch v. Allstate.)
1999 C Clements v. ITT Hartford, 1999 OK CIV APP 6, 973 P.2d 902: Bad faith claim survives death of insured.
C Swickey v. Silvey Companies, 1999 OK CIV APP 48, 979 P.2d 266: insured’s breach of contract claim and intended insured’s negligence claim against agent are jury questions.
2000 C Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. (Barnes II), 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162: no attorney fee award on UM claim absent exception to American rule; overrules Brashier v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 1996 OK 86, 925 P.2d 20.
C Narvaez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 1999 OK CIV APP 92, 989 P.2d 1051: Assault in parking lot before assailant steals car is not injury arising out of transportation use of car.
C Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, 11 P.3d 190. Low-ball offers and failure to pay funeral and medical bills constituted bad faith warranting punitive damages.
C Skinner v. John Deere Ins. Co., 2000 OK 18, 998 P.2d 1219: UM limits are those stated in policy where no rejection taken of UM limits equal to higher liability limits.
C Wille v. GEICO Casualty Co., 2000 OK 10, 2 P.3d 888: 5-year SOL on UM claim begins to run when breach of contract occurs.
2001 C Gates v. Eller, 2001 OK 38, 22 P.3d 1215: Tort-feasor is not considered uninsured when 2-year tort SOL runs and damages do not exceed tort-feasor’s liability limit.
C Herren v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 82, 26 P.3d 120: law of state where insured lived and policy issued applies.
C Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 263 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001): UM carrier cannot deny coverage and then assert Porter defense; release of tort-feasor does not destroy UM claim unless UM carrier is prejudiced & insured knows of UM coverage.
2002 C Graham v. Travelers Ins. Co., 2002 OK 95, 61 P.3d 225: Employee covered under hired and non-owned coverage does not have to be covered under UM.
C Mueggenborg v.Ellis 2002 OK CIV APP 88, 55 P.3d 452: Agent has no duty to advise of higher UM limits.
C Price v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, 2002 OK CIV APP 16, 41 P.3d 1019: Not bad faith for the insurance company to disagree with the insured on policy interpretation.
C Widmann v. Acceptance Insurance Co., 2002 OK CIV APP 118, 63 P.3d 23: Employee may not stack employer’s UM coverage.
2003 C Burgess v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2003 OK CIV APP 85, 77 P.3d 612: Anti-stacking and setoff clauses in Kansas policies upheld.
C London v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 2003 OK CIV APP 10, 63 P.3d 552: Bodily injury must be to an insured.
ORC Mid-Continent Group v. Henry, 2003 OK CIV APP 46, 69 P.3d 1216: Insurance company may not deny stacking where it charges single, per policy premium, without notice to insured that coverage does not stack, even where the coverage is imputed.
2004 C American Economy Insurance Company v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, 89 P.3d 1051: No UM to corporation owner’s son where corporation is the named insured.
C Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 2004 OK 25, 94 P.3d 25: No attorney fee on UM claim; no applicable exception to American Rule.
C Ply v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 2003 OK 97, 81 P.3d 643: Supervisor’s bad instructions constitute use and employer’s non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of truck trigger UM coverage for employee.
C Dodd v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2004 OK CIV APP 82, 99 P.3d 1219: when insurance company collects the equivalent of two UM premiums under one policy with stackable coverage and second policy says UM coverage was paid for under first policy, only the two UM limits under the first policy stack.
2005 C Ameen v. Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 2005 OK CIV APP 23, 110 P.3d 86: (1) insurance company may not define “insured” under UM policy based on type of vehicle insured was occupying; and (2) a legitimate dispute as to validity of the provision precluded bad faith claim.
C GEICO General Insurance Company v. Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company, 2005 OK 40, 115 P.3d 856: both primary liability and UM coverages must be paid before an excess liability carrier is obligated under umbrella policy.
C Spears v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, 2005 OK 35, 114 P.3d 448: expressly overrules Mid-Continent Group v. Henry, 2003 OK CIV APP 46, 69 P.3d 1216; insurer does not have to explain or warn insured that UM coverage does not stack.
C Strong v. Hanover Insurance Company, 2005 OK CIV APP 9, 106 P.3d 604: insurance company cannot fail to protect its subrogation rights and then deny coverage when insured settles with and releases tort-feasor.
2006 C Alternative Med. of Tulsa, Inc. v. Cates, 2006 OK CIV APP 65, 136 P.3d 716: “Named-driver” exclusion void if it leaves innocent insured without minimum limits UM.
C Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 2006 OK 29, 139 P.3d 873: 42 O.S. §46 physician’s lien attached to UM proceeds.
C Haberman v. The Hartford In, Group, 443 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2006): named persons endorsement to policy on single shareholder corporation naming shareholder as insured extends coverage for all purposes.
C Lamfu v. GuideOne Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 19, 131 P.3d 712: UM claimant must prove damages in excess of tortfeasor’s liability limit to get UM coverage.
C Pearson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 393 F.Supp.2d 1238 (W.D. Okla. 2005): UM policy did not provide greater grant of coverage than UM statute; no causal connection between injury and transportation mode of bucket truck.
C Reeds v. Honorable Thomas S. Walker/NAICO v. Reeds, 2006 OK 43, 157 P.3d 100: ERISA health plan has right of subrogation in UM proceeds.
2007 C Brown v. Patel, et al.,2007 OK 16, 157 P.3d 117: UM carrier may not intervene to protect subrogation until it pays but may move for permissive intervention to protect its liability position; Defendant’s verdict against tort-feasor doesn’t protect UM carrier from bad faith; Jury question precludes bad faith summary judgment.
C Great West Casualty Company v. Boroughs, 505 F.Supp.2d 1072 (N.D. Okla. 2007): Employer’s UM Carrier not liable for injury to truck driver because employer was not negligent and liable for injury.
2008 C Garnett v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2008 OK 43, 186 P.3d 935: Facts didn’t support failure to pay uncontested amount of UM as bad faith.
C Murchison v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 572 F.Supp.2d 1281 (E.D. OK 2008): No bad faith claim where insurance company paid claim, albeit late but fact question precluded summary judgment whether insurance company owed interest.
C National American Ins. Co. v.Vallion, 2008 OK CIV APP 41, 183 P.3d 175: Insurance company may exclude from coverage an occupant who owns a car.
2009 C Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 2009 OK 38, 221 P.3d 717: holds that a loaned vehicle exclusion in a commercial liability policy issued to a garage business violates Oklahoma public policy and is void but that the insurance company has no duty to defend where coverage exists solely because of the compulsory insurance law and that the insurance company was not in bad faith for relying on the exclusion to delay payment of UM benefits.
C Bernal v. Charter County Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 OK 28, 209 P.3d 309: holds that Texas law will be applied to interpret policy provisions denying UM benefits from an accident and death in Oklahoma and disapproves Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1992 OK CIV APP 106, 838 P.2d 535.
C 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.
C Gregg v. Le Mars Ins. Co., 2009 OK CIV APP 93, 227 P.3d 1107:
holds that prejudgment interest on an uninsured motorist (UM) claim ran from the time the insurance company paid an uncontested amount, not the time it waived subrogation.
2010 C Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, 241 P.3d 285: holds that an insurance company can demand a release of a UM claim upon paying UM limits and that a delay by the insurance company in paying UM limits was not unreasonable but that its inclusion of a requirement for indemnification language in the release to be signed by the insured and the insured’s counsel created a fact question whether the insurance company acted in good faith.
C Porter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 OK CIV APP 8, 231 P. 3d 691: holds that the insured who settles with the tort-feasor for less than the tort-feasor’s liability insurance limit cannot recover UM coverage.
C Morris v. America First Ins. Co., 2010 OK 35, 240 P.3d 661: holds that a policy provision as in Conner v. Amer. Commerce excluding a named insured who is injured while occupying a vehicle he owns but which is not insured for UM is invalid if the insured has other coverage which attaches when he is in the vehicle.
C Traders Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 2010 OK CIV APP 37, 231 P.3d 790 holds that a fact question whether the named insureds’ daughter had apparent authority to reject UM coverage precluded summary judgment for the insureds and against the insurance company on a claim of imputed UM coverage.
2011 C Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Quine 264 P.3d 1245, 2011 OK 88 holds that a UM carrier need not pay the amount of its evaluation of a UM claim without a release so long as the insured has been paid the insured’s special damages.
2012 C Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Earnest, 861 F.Supp.2d 1313 (N.D. Okla. 2012). A road construction employee was “occupying” an insured dump truck where the dump truck was backing up and pushing a “chip spreader” on which the employee was actually riding when the spreader hit an oiler truck ahead of the rig, due to a policy provision covering special equipment being pulled or transported by the insured vehicle.
(Updated January 28, 2013)