ANAYA-SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., 549 P.3d 1213

Michael Brian Smith was killed in a single-vehicle accident while a passenger in an employer-owned vehicle (FADCO) being driven by a coworker during work.
FADCO carried $7 million in liability insurance and an optional uninsured motorist (UM) policy, but had rejected UM coverage for regular employees while purchasing $1 million in UM coverage for directors/officers and their family members.
Due to the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision, Smith’s estate could not recover against the employer or its insurance for liability.
Smith’s estate, via Nancy Anaya-Smith, sought to claim UM benefits from FADCO's policy, which Federated Mutual Insurance denied, arguing Smith was not covered by the UM policy.
The Tenth Circuit certified three state law questions to the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding the classification of the vehicle as uninsured, the uniformity of UM coverage, and the applicable UM policy limits if the coverage structure was found unlawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Is an employer-owned vehicle an “uninsured motor vehicle” if the employee cannot recover due to workers' comp exclusivity?	Yes: The inability to recover means the vehicle is uninsured.	No: The existence of $7M in liability insurance precludes this.	Yes: The vehicle is “uninsured” if the claim is barred by workers’ comp exclusivity.
2. Can a corporate named insured selectively provide UM coverage to classes of insureds?	No: The statute requires equal UM treatment for all insureds.	Yes: The policyholder should choose which classes get UM.	No: UM selection/rejection must apply uniformly to all insureds under one policy.
3. If selective UM coverage is unlawful, what is the correct UM policy limit for excluded persons?	Higher $1M limit should apply to all qualified insureds.	Apply only statutory minimum of $25K/$50K to others.	Court declined to answer due to underdeveloped record and arguments.

Barfield v. Barfield, 742 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1987) (employee's survivors could recover UM benefits after exclusive workers’ comp recovery)
Torres v. Kansas City Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 407 (Okla. 1993) (UM benefits available through employer’s policy despite workers’ comp recovery)
Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 221 P.3d 717 (Okla. 2009) (insurance contracts must comply with public policy set by UM statute)
Graham v. Travelers Ins. Co., 61 P.3d 225 (Okla. 2002) (employer may limit scope of UM coverage within the policy)
State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Greer, 777 P.2d 941 (Okla. 1989) (purpose of UM coverage is protection from uncompensated torts)
Lane v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 494 P.3d 345 (Okla. 2021) (invalidating exclusions that nullify paid-for UM coverage)