Davis v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.
2012 OK CIV APP 98
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2012Background
- Davis seeks review of a trial court order denying UM/UIM relief and dismissing the petition.
- Tammy McWilliams’ uninsured motorist selection/rejection form was not submitted to the Oklahoma Insurance Commission for preapproval.
- Accident occurred March 30, 2009; Manuel McWilliams drove, Tammy McWilliams was the named insured.
- Progressive Northern Insurance Co. paid the liability claim of $25,000 to Davis.
- Progressive denied UM/UIM benefits due to McWilliams’ rejection of UM/UIM coverage.
- Trial court initially granted partial summary judgment in Davis’ favor, then reconsidered and dismissed after Progressive’s motion; appellate court reviews de novo and converts the motion to summary judgment because outside materials were involved.
- The form in question was deemed an effective rejection of UM/UIM coverage despite not being filed for approval; § 3620 allows the form to be construed and applied as if compliant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to obtain Insurance Commissioner approval invalidates the form. | Davis: unapproved form is invalid, leaving UM/UIM coverage. | Progressive: unapproved form can still effectively reject UM/UIM as construed under § 3620. | Form is an effective rejection under § 3620. |
| Whether the McWilliams rejection form was valid despite regulatory preapproval issues. | McWilliams’ rejection should render no UM/UIM coverage. | Form is valid as rejection when construed under § 3620 even if not approved. | Form constitutes a valid rejection of UM/UIM coverage. |
| What standard governs the court’s review of the trial court’s dismissal order. | N/A | N/A | De novo review; summary-judgment standard applies. |
| How § 3620 and § 3636 interact regarding validity of unapproved forms. | Unapproved forms render noncompliant terms invalid. | Forms not approved are construed as if compliant; no voiding of endorsements. | Forms are construed and applied as if approved; no voiding of endorsements. |
| Whether the failure to secure preapproval warrants voiding the regulatory endorsement. | Voiding endorsements is required sanction for noncompliance. | Sanction not explicit; endorsement remains enforceable under construction. | Failure to comply does not void the regulatory exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- May v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 9 18 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1996) (unapproved forms may be construed, not automatically void)
- Hill v. Agri-Risk Serv. and Traders Ins. Co., 827 P.2d 904 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992) (preapproval issues can be addressed by construction of policy terms)
- Roark v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 389 (Okla. 1986) (no mandated sanction for failure to seek submission/approval)
- F.D.I.C. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 975 F.2d 677 (10th Cir.) (federal analog supporting constructive validity of unapproved forms)
- Powell v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA., 772 F.Supp. 1188 (W.D. Okla. 1991) (endorsements not void for lack of preapproval; construing effects)