SERRA v. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF BROUGHTON, 2015 OK 82

Sandra Vilarrubias Serra, an 18-year-old Spanish exchange student, lived temporarily in Traci Robertson’s Pryor, OK household as a host-family member while attending high school.
Serra suffered serious injuries as a passenger in another driver’s car in an accident; the motorcycle driver died.
Serra sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) and medical payments coverage under Robertson’s State Farm policy.
State Farm denied coverage, asserting Serra was not an "insured" because she was not a "resident relative" (not related by blood/marriage/adoption, not a foster child, and not a ward).
The trial court granted State Farm’s summary judgment; the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Serra qualifies as an "insured" under UM and medical-pay provisions via the policy's "resident relative" definition (specifically as a "ward")	Serra lived in Robertson’s household, was under Robertson’s care/protection while hosted, and therefore qualifies as a "ward" and resident relative for coverage	State Farm: Serra was not primarily resident with Robertson, was not related by blood/marriage/adoption, was not a foster child or legally appointed ward, and remained dependent on parents (who were required to carry coverage)	Court held the policy term "ward" is ambiguous and, construing ambiguities in favor of coverage, Serra could be a "ward"; summary judgment for insurer was improper and case remanded for further proceedings

Houston v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83 (10th Cir. 1987) (policy term “ward” ambiguous; non‑technical meaning favored for coverage)
Flitton v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 824 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1992) (policy terms construed in ordinary, not overly technical, sense; familial relationship interpretations)
Haworth v. Jantzen, 172 P.3d 193 (Okla. 2006) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed in favor of insured; insurer must use clear language to limit coverage)
Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 912 P.2d 861 (Okla. 1996) (interpretation of insurance contracts and ambiguity as question of law)
Clayton v. Millers First Ins. Cos., 892 N.E.2d 613 (Ill. App. 2008) (discussion of "ward"/"resident relative" issues and remand when material factual disputes exist)