Case Law Watch

Oklahoma
Savage v. Burton(Okla. App. Nov. 15, 2005)

Son-in-law did not qualify as “insured” under mother-in-law’s UM coverage: Defendant shot decedent to death during a road rage incident. The estate of decedent initiated an action against defendant and State Farm seeking uninsured motorist coverage. At the time of the occurrence, decedent was driving his mother-in-law’s vehicle, which did not contain UM coverage. The mother-in-law maintained another policy with State Farm that contained UM coverage.

The question here was whether the trial court properly determined that the decedent did not qualify as an “insured” under the mother-in-law’s policy. The policy defined the term “relative” as “a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who resides primarily with you.”

The decedent’s mother-in-law testified at deposition that she did not consider her son-in-law to reside “primarily” with her at the time of his death. Decedent’s wife similarly testified that the decedent was “primarily” residing with her at leased premises.

In opposition to State Farm’s summary judgment, decedent’s wife submitted a contradictory affidavit, claiming that the decedent was living with the mother-in-law because she had a fight with the decedent the day before his death. She further claimed that the decedent told her that he would move his belongings to the mother-in-law’s house.

The appellate court held that the wife’s affidavit created only a sham issue of fact and, therefore, the trial court’s finding that the son-in-law did not qualify as an insured under the mother-in-law’s policy was proper.

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Tolliver(Okla. Dec. 20, 2005)
Intent to Deceive Must Be Shown to Disclaim Coverage: Oklahoma District Court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to determine whether Oklahoma law requires a finding that the insured intended to deceive the insurer before a misrepresentation, omission or incorrect statement on the insurance application can be used to disclaim coverage under the policy pursuant to Okla. Stat. Tit. 36 § 3609. In declining to answer the certified question, the Supreme Court pointed to authoritative precedent that Oklahoma required a finding of “intent to deceive” before disclaimer can be had. Whether the insured possessed the requisite “intent to deceive” was a question of fact for the jury and the insurer was required to prove that the insured “knew or should have known” that the facts omitted from the application were “material” to the insurer’s decision to accept the risk.

Goldberg Segalla (www.goldbergsegalla.com) counsels and represents individuals and businesses in specialized areas of civil litigation, contractual and extra-contractual disputes and regulatory matters before state and federal agencies. Kevin T. Merriman can be reached at kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.

Topics Lawsuits Oklahoma