SERRA v. PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF BROUGHTON
2015 OK 82
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Sandra Vilarrubias Serra, an 18-year-old Spanish exchange student, lived in Traci Robertson’s home while attending high school in Pryor, Oklahoma.
- Serra was seriously injured as a passenger in a friend’s car when it collided with a motorcycle; the motorcyclist died.
- Serra sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) and medical payments coverage under Robertson’s State Farm auto policy; State Farm denied coverage.
- The policy defined “insured” to include “resident relatives,” which in turn included a “ward or a foster child,” but did not define “ward.”
- Trial court granted State Farm’s summary judgment; the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court found the policy ambiguous as to the term “ward,” held Serra could potentially qualify as a ward, reversed summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Serra is an “insured” under UM and medical-pay provisions as a “ward” of Robertson | Serra contends that as an exchange student living in Robertson’s home she was under Robertson’s care and protection and thus a “ward” | State Farm argues Serra was not a ward because she primarily resided with her parents, received parental support and insurance, and was not legally appointed as a ward or foster child | The Court held the term “ward” is ambiguous and, construed in favor of coverage, Serra could be a ward; summary judgment for State Farm reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83 (10th Cir. 1987) (construed undefined policy term “ward” in ordinary, non‑technical sense; ambiguity favors insured)
- Flitton v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 824 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1992) (policy construed by ordinary understanding; familial definitions should not be limited by technical legal categories)
- Haworth v. Jantzen, 172 P.3d 193 (Okla. 2006) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed to favor coverage; insurer must use clear language to limit liability)
- Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 912 P.2d 861 (Okla. 1996) (interpretation of insurance contract and ambiguity are questions of law for the court)