*1 supported appeal on it is disturbed reasonably Application of
evidence. to these facts leads
prudent criteria conclusion that this claimant was
us connection his the causal between
aware of
hearing job loss his related activities prior the time he filed many years Thus, this claim was not
his claim 1984. statute of year
filed one after the triggered and it is
limitations had been barred.
therefore OF APPEALS’ OPINION VA-
COURT OF THE WORKERS’
CATED. COURT SUSTAINED.
COMPENSATION OPALA, V.C.J.,
JJ.
WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS, JJ.,
dissents. FARM AUTOMOBILE
STATE COMPANY,
INSURANCE
Plaintiff, Frank
Melissa GREER and
Greer, Defendants.
No. 70212.
July
*2
Secrest, II, Tulsa,
plaintiff.
James K.
political
agencies”
its
is
void as
the
expressed
Tulsa,
S. Sharp,
Dale
and John
Warner
in 36 O.S.1981 3636.
for defendants.
Oklahoma has
mandated
HODGES, Justice.
the inclusion of uninsured motorist cover
The
States
District Court for the
policies
in automobile
insurance
us
of
Northern District
Oklahoma has certi-
ing
specific
the
found
question
fied
of
this
pursu-
law to
in 36
(C)
O.S.1981 3636. Subsection
is
ant
the Oklahoma
Uniform Certification
applicable in this situation and reads as
Act,
Questions of
of
Law
O.S.1981 follows
seq.
question
1601 et
The
certified for
(C)
purposes
For the
coverage
of this
the
is:
answer
term “uninsured motor vehicle” shall in-
Is the definition of uninsured motor ve-
clude an insured motor vehicle
the
where
hicle that excludes
land
any
motor ve-
liability insurer thereof is unable to make
by any government
hicle
of
any
owned
respect
with
to the
liabili-
agencies
subdivisions or
ty of its insured within the
speci-
limits
against public
policy?
fied
insolvency.
therein because of
For
We answer
the affirmative.
purposes
the
coverage
of this
the term
Frank Greer was the named insured on
“uninsured motor
in-
vehicle” shall also
policies
four
of automobile insurance issued
vehicle,
clude an insured motor
the liabili-
by State Farm Automobile Insurance Com-
ty
of
limits
which are less
the
than
(hereinafter
pany
Farm”).
“State
Three of
of
person
amount
the claim of the
policies
provided for uninsured motorist
persons
claim,
regardless
$25,000
coverage
per person
$50,000
and
of coverage
amount
of either
per
The
provided
accident.
fourth
parties in relation to each other.
coverage
$100,-
for uninsured motorist
reviewing
this
we are mind-
per
$300,000
per
accident.
ful
coverage
that
the insurance
contract
policies
All of these
were
effect when
required by the
liberally
to be
daughter,
Greer,
Greer’s natural
Melissa
object
construed
favor of the
ac-
be
injured
passenger
was
while a
in a vehicle
complished.
Company
Aetna Insurance
(here-
University
Oklahoma State
Zablotsky,
(Okla.1971).
“university”).
inafter
The
including
unin-
university,
Melissa
sued
Greer
sured motorist
in an insurance
driver of the vehicle and State Farm in
protect
policy is to
the insured from the
Payne County
theory
District Court on the
personal
effects
injury resulting
university
and the driver were
accident with an uninsured/underinsured
underinsured motorists as defined
motorist.
O.S.1981 3636 at the
time
accident
(Okla.1983).
P.2d 681
specifically,
More
and, therefore, she should
entitled
uninsured motorist
allows an
coverage provided by
sured to be
indemnified
insured is
policies
the State Farm
issued to Frank
unable
recover fully
negligent
response
brought
Greer.
State Farm
motorist. Karlson v.
seeking declaratory
this action
relief that
P.2d
university
vehicle in which Melissa
passenger
Greer was a
when
accident
statutory
Oklahoma’s
determina
occurred
not an
was
uninsured motor ve-
tion of
included under the term
hicle as defined in the State Farm insur-
“uninsured motor
does
specifi
policies
ance
issued to Frank Greer.
cally
any
class of vehicles. Other
statutory
with
Greers contend that
definition of
sim
appears
(C)
uninsured motor
ilar
vehicle that
in the
to that
subsection
have found
policies
any
excludes
“land
policy provisions
motor
specifically
ve-
by any government
hicle
excluding
vehicles from the
be allowed to look
vehicle are
An insured must
category of
motor
uninsured
therefore,
and,
the insurer when the
limits
against public
Hillhouse v. negligent
prevent
unenforceable.
the insured
void and
Farmers
recovering fully
injuries
226 Kan.
suf-
v. Nationwide
Higgins
Allowing
fered.
such as the
291 Ala.
Mutual Insurance
objective
one before us to thwart
*3
Farm Mutual
State
origi-
So.2d 301
major
would be
deviation
Carlson, v.
Ins. Co.
Automobile
Ga.
legislative
intent
of 36 O.S.1981
nal
(1973).
past
Our
App.
202 S.E.2d
3636(C).
This
a blatant at-
§
surveys of various Oklahoma
tempt
to limit the
of 36
effect
O.S.1981
consistently held
policy provisions have
As such we must find it to be
3636.
§
in
by
inserted
and, therefore,
against public policy
void
leg
purports to dilute the
policy
v.
and unenforceable. Brown
motorist cov
islatively mandated uninsured
Ass’n,
Heavner Farmers WILSON, ALMA KAUGER Wright, Lake v. (Okla.1983); SUMMERS, JJ., concur. Co., Ins. Porter v. MFA Mut. (Okla.1982) in concurs result. (Okla.1982); Biggs v. State Auto. Ins. Farm Mut. OPALA, V.C.J., dissents. OPALA, Justice, Chief Vice our atten- In its Farm directs brief State dissenting. v. Intern. Serv. Francis today that insurers are The court holds and Commercial (Tex.1976) 546 S.W.2d from unin- not allowed to Delaney, Union Ins. Co. 550 S.W.2d policy cover- validity upheld (Ky.1977). Both cases by “any government or vehicles specifically ex- provisions that agen- catego- clude vehicles I must recede from this view. cies.” Fran- ry uninsured motor vehicles. coverage for the Mandatory inclusion of cis distinguishable in that the deci- case is controversy from in here is woven relied on the Texas Unin- vehicles sion of the court Nothing thin air. expressly the fiber of Act sured Motorist insurers, implicitly, explicitly commands exclusion of vehicles whose authorizes the provide imposed to- protection and the court’s operators are uninsured cover- day’s opinion. In the context UM finding in further- this exclusion was constitute age, publicly vehicles Act. The Okla- ance of the of the statutorily constitutionally both language. contains no homa statute Delaney govern- Because Supreme totally separate class.2 Kentucky all liability, enjoy limited the Ken- ment tortfeasors used in relied on are under- their vehicles which de- tucky definition of insured. There is no warrant law term “uninsured motor fined the rejecting prohibiting private insurers and condi- being “subject to the terms as grossly substandard risks unacceptable, of such tions [uninsured motorist] whose owners language is which embrace vehicles Nothing similar to this ...” separate distinctly constitu- stand under statute. We do found in Public tort- liability rubric. persuasive tional find either of these counterpart, feasors, private position. unlike their regards Farm’s State Service, Janitorial 2. See Black Ball 1. 36 obligor shielded insurer without a full they deal. If there harm indeed is a class subrogation may pressed. whom in a category justifiably exclud- short, I uphold would ex- coverage purposes, able for it is a clusion here in controversy the extent government-owned motor fleet.3 it is, relieves the UM insurer pronouncement Today’s transmogrifies essence, assumption of a primary forced 3636 uninsured/underinsured motor- portion govern- for that of the ist into a veritable insurer’s ex- mental liability tortfeasor’s which exceeds cess for a nonexistent tort obli- statutorily authorized limits. gation public whose bodies ex delicto accountability stands limited law. The imposes clearly court
risk the extends be- parameters
yond man- *4 the class of indemnity regulated
date for 3636.4 (§ 3636)
The statute mandates only in which demnity, denotes for an unin STATE of Oklahoma rel. ex OKLA- ASSOCIATION, person.5 third To BAR HOMA day’s court-mandated UM ex Complainant, beyond perimeter. tends far It com pels protection governmental for a tort- MAXWELL, Respondent. James I. (an “extralegal” liability feasor’s obligation exceeds limit autho SCBD 3544. law). rized OBAD 883. yet There is factor another which mili- strongly against today’s mandatory tates July 18, 1989. government-owned inclusion protection. within the umbrella of UM Sec- contemplates pre- claim After subroga-
serves the carrier’s careful review of the matters sub- Compelled assumption tion.6 mitted in “excess” the above-entitled cause the Court governmental respondent’s leaves the UM finds that motion that 3. For 4. See 5. UM A.L.R.4th torist —who See nity, to Recover Uninsured Motorist with the definition and the What Vehicle or contractual ty. Coverage, Motor Vehicle because of Governmental Immu- ing against of another —the [1985] sured/underinsured not.: 1113 [1987] government-owned It is Right of Constitutes Barfield (Opala, the insurer's 806; 26 A.L.R.3d Motorist, Owner or from other (Opala, Insured, v. Home legally responsible J., is a Annot.: Automobile Insurance: Barfield, uninsured/underinsured dissenting). recognized "Uninsured” J., vehicles under Precluded from Recover- Operator dissenting); pay mandatory Okl., Uninsured 12.5. coverage, form of infra of Uninsured “first-party" Benefits, “Unknown” tortious act Karlson v. note 6 at the unin- that deal payment. inclusion indemni Motorist see An- 75-76 mo 6.36 O.S.1981 Mut. Ins. 684-685; bus Okl.App., are: 333 P.2d Uptegraft "(E) such phasis cluding assets of resulting recovery injury ment under the organization ¶2); pertinent proceeds In the event subject coverage, shall, for added.]" 508, State Insurance Fund v. 704 P.2d Bill Co., Okl, which such coverage required by 509-510 Hodges terms of 36 proceeds legally responsible insolvent 3636(E), infra; the exercise the terms and conditions of person against any person 94, extent 643 P.2d Truck Co. [1958] 96 [1985]. payment settlement recoverable insurer. thereof, Okl., (the 302, Porter v. 662 P.2d for any rights court's Taron, Okl., this section * * * any person Humphrey, entitled to made, such judgment 3636(E) [1982]; bodily sylla [Em- MFA pay- 681,