Whether judge was correct in finding that “UM exclusion” of “Progressive Policy” was void as against public policy.
Whether public policy behind Oklahoma’s UM/UIM Statute and that mandating minimum liability insurance are the same.
36 O.S. § 3636 precludes Progressive’s exclusion; 36 O.S. § 3636(H) does not permit exclusions which violate public policy.
Progressive misrepresents scope of UM exclusion.
Progressive’s exclusion is void and unenforceable under Oklahoma Law.
Absent Progressive’s UM exclusion, there is UM coverage.
Language of Notice to Prospective Insured not part of UM statute and provides specifically it is not part of policy.
Progressive’s reliance on liability insurance cases misplaced.
Public Policy behind compulsory liability coverage applies only to liability limits up to compulsory minimum limits.
UM coverage required to be offered up to policy’s liability limit.
Progressive’s cases dealing with liability exclusions have no bearing on its UM exclusion.
Judge’s ruling and plaintiff’s position not “absurd” by any measure.
Because UM exclusion violates Oklahoma public policy, it is void and should be given no effect.