RAYMOND v. TAYLOR
2017 OK 80
| Okla. | 2017Background
- July 6, 2012: passenger Mark Raymond severely injured in collision caused by BlueKnight employee; driver died. Raymond’s damages exceeded $2,000,000.
- Guy's Seed (employer) had UM coverage through American Mercury (Mercury) with $1,000,000 UM limits; Mercury paid Raymond $500,000 under UM coverage.
- Tortfeasor (BlueKnight/Bedell) had $1,000,000 primary liability and a $40,000,000 excess liability policy.
- Raymond settled with tortfeasors for a confidential amount greater than the primary limit but less than excess limits; $500,000 claimed by Mercury was held pending allocation dispute.
- Mercury intervened seeking subrogation for the $500,000 UM payment; district court awarded full subrogation against settlement funds, COCA affirmed; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Central legal question: whether an UM insurer may subrogate against an under-insured tortfeasor’s assets (including excess liability policy) beyond primary insurer proceeds under 36 O.S. § 3636(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Raymond) | Defendant's Argument (Mercury) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an UM insurer may subrogate the UM payment from an under‑insured tortfeasor’s assets (including excess policy) when UM paid because the tortfeasor was under‑insured under §3636(C) | Mercury’s subrogation claim is barred as to tortfeasor assets beyond the primary insurer; UM statute limits recovery to proceeds from tortfeasor’s primary insurer/assets when payment is made under §3636(C) | §3636(F)’s first sentence grants general subrogation rights; the second sentence (mentioning insolvent insurer) should not bar recovery from tortfeasor’s other assets where insurer is solvent and tortfeasor is merely under‑insured | Oklahoma Supreme Court: UM insurer is limited to subrogation against the tortfeasor’s primary insurer/assets only and may not recover from the tortfeasor’s excess liability policy or other assets in under‑insured scenarios under §3636(F) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moser v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 406 (Okla. 1986) (interpreting UM statute intent; excludes excess/umbrella policies from §3636 calculations)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Pac. Indem. Co., 115 P.3d 856 (Okla. 2005) (excess/umbrella policies not counted when determining under‑insured vehicle under §3636(C))
- Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 11 P.3d 162 (Okla. 2000) (statutory provisions must be read together; context limits subrogation in certain circumstances)
- Porter v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 643 P.2d 302 (Okla. 1982) (recognizes UM carrier’s right to recoupment from third‑party tortfeasor; distinguishes insolvent insurer context)
- Burch v. Allstate Ins. Co., 977 P.2d 1057 (Okla. 1998) (UM carrier statutorily subrogated to insured’s rights against tortfeasor and tortfeasor’s liability carrier)
- Keel v. MFA Ins. Co., 553 P.2d 153 (Okla. 1976) (principle that insured should not be deprived of UM protection by shifting recovery to other tortfeasor assets)