Summary Judgment 012: UM-UIM-policy exclusions, bad faith case in federal court:
Progressive’s exclusion void and unenforceable under Oklahoma law.
Absent Progressive’s exclusion, there is UM coverage.
Progressive’s reliance on liability insurance cases in attempt to validate its UM exclusion misplaced; compulsory liability insurance, non-compulsory liability insurance, and UM each have different statutory schemes and different requirements as to limits effected.
Statutorily articulated public policy behind compulsory liability coverage applies only to liability limits up to t compulsory minimum limits.
UM coverage required to be offered up to policy’s liability limit.
Progressive’s cases holding Class 1 or Class 2 drivers or passengers may be excluded from liability insurance have no bearing on its UM exclusion here.
Progressive’s cited UM cases either don’t apply to this case or actively foreclose Progressive’s attempted exclusion.
Progressive’s cited UM stacking cases don’t say what Progressive thinks they say.
Compulsory auto liability insurance act sets only minimum of compulsory liability coverage; UM statute sets both minimum and maximum; this is not an imputed UM coverage case but a UM reformation case to remove an exclusion; plaintiff’s bodily injury damages are measured by the amount of her bodily injury claim relative to the UM policy limits, not by compulsory auto liability insurance act.
Imputed coverage cases don’t apply here.
Progressive is not entitled to judgment as matter of law as to its bad faith where it simply chose to ignore clear precedent.