SERRA v. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF BROUGHTON
364 P.3d 637
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Sandra Vilarrubias Serra, an 18-year-old Spanish exchange student, lived with Traci Robertson in Pryor, Oklahoma while attending high school.
- Serra was seriously injured as a passenger in a third party's vehicle; she sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) and medical payments benefits under Robertson's State Farm auto policy.
- State Farm denied coverage, contending Serra was not an "insured" because she was not a "resident relative" — specifically not a "ward" or "foster child" of Robertson.
- The trial court granted State Farm summary judgment; the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The policy defined "insured" to include "resident relatives," and defined "resident relative" to include "a ward or a foster child" of the named insured; "ward" was not defined in the policy.
- The Supreme Court held the policy term "ward" is ambiguous in context and remanded for further proceedings, reversing summary judgment for State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Serra was an "insured" under Robertson's UM and medical-pay coverage as a "ward" (i.e., a "resident relative"). | Serra contends she was under Robertson's care and protection while living in Robertson's household and thus falls within the ordinary meaning of "ward." | State Farm argues "ward" should be read in its technical/legal sense (guardian-appointed ward) and Serra does not meet that standard; she remained dependent on her parents and had separate insurance. | The court held "ward" is ambiguous in the policy context; summary judgment for State Farm cannot stand as a matter of law and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83 (10th Cir. 1987) (policy term "ward" ambiguous; ordinary meaning favored over strict legal definition)
- Flitton v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 824 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1992) (insurance terms construed in common, non‑technical sense; familial relationships interpreted broadly)
- Haworth v. Jantzen, 172 P.3d 193 (Okla. 2006) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed in favor of coverage; insurer must express limitations clearly)
- Clayton v. Millers First Ins. Cos., 892 N.E.2d 613 (Ill. App. 2008) (remanded where factual disputes existed about whether claimant qualified as a "ward")