*1 specific vehicle he was provided for EQUITY injured.

driving he was INSURANCE MUTUAL

COMPANY, foreign a Plaintiff, corporation, CONCLUSION IV. jurisdict in this adopted the view Under user

ion,5 as a status Stanton’s VALLEY WHOLESALE NUR- SPRING extend single Fuller vehicle cannot be aof SERY, INC., corporation; an Oklahoma right to stack him the as to afford ed so Highways Department of State non-occupant of 378 other coverage as a Transportation, a commission created by American Mutu insured Fuller vehicles Texas; the Estate of the State they entered the time is clear that at al. It Evens, through Hank the administrator contract, Fuller and American into their Nobels; A. and Sue Evens William fleet cover contemplated that the Mutual Makin, widow of Hank Ev- Sue a/k/a uninsured motorist bene extend would ens, deceased; Kansas and Oklahoma occupant permissive-user only fits Railroad, Defendants, and Texas To find oth single vehicle. employee of foreign Indemnity Company, a National total entitle Stanton to claim would erwise corporation, Intervenor $20,- $7,580,000.00 (379 x coverage of Cross-Petitioner. 000.00), from him to contribution without a re securing such Such wards No. 66443. absurdity. clearly an sult is Supreme Court Oklahoma. Here, permissive-user em- was a Stanton Dec. not the Fuller’s vehicle. He was ployee of fleet under Fuller’s insured named Mutual; pay the nor did he American coverage extended for the broad

premiums Thus, Stanton insured.

to the named 2 insured. status of a Class

occupied the question, answering the first certified to stack is not entitled hold that Stanton

we coverage for the motorist

the uninsured The maxi-

remaining 378 Fuller vehicles. $20,- Mutual is liability of American

mum

000.00, being the uninsured motorist who was an

coverage available to Stanton being permissive- virtue of the accident. employee at the time

user conclusion, find it

Having this we reached second certified

unnecessary to address the

question. QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

CERTIFIED

All Justices concur. (1972). America, S.E.2d 832 Va. Cunningham Ins. Co. North *2 beyond apply vehicle does

commercial radius? 200-mile it is not in violation If the court finds policy, such a limitation would liability claimants and additional apply to knowledge no of the radi- who have endorsement? us *3 by Equi- primary Is insurance carried Company in- ty Mutual [owner’s Indemnity Company National or surer] user’s [permissive insurer]? in af- question first answer the

We radius hold that a 200-mile firmative and operator’s liabili- in limitation an owner’s compliance with Okla- ty policy obtained laws, liability insurance homa’s seq., contra- 7-600 et §§ statutory policy and underlying venes limits the minimum insofar as it is void by cited statute. coverage required to the affirmative answer Because our Gibbon, Arbogast, W. D. Oliver Richard qualified, we must answer question is Associates, first Gibbon, Jr., Gladd & Messrs. application to the question as the second Tulsa, plaintiff. for radius limitation the 200-mile Wilkerson, Parrish, Rich- Steve Harry A. cover- insured for and additional claimants Knight, Wagner, Wagner, D. Messrs. ard required minimum to the additional Tulsa, Lieber, Stuart, for de- & Wilkerson unambiguous hold that an by law.1 We Nursery, Spring Valley Wholesale fendant clearly set forth exclusion Inc. binding on liability policy which a vehicle Jr., Bonds, Bonds, Mat- Messrs. Camp A. binding on also insured is Muskogee, de- thews, Hayes, for Bonds & to cov- insureds as and additional claimants Texas R.R. Kansas and fendant Oklahoma .minimum, even statutory erage above Weiman, Holden, Melvin C. E. Steven insureds additional and if such claimants Wilburn, Wilburn, Master- Ray Messrs. H. of the exclusion. unaware were Tulsa, Holden, for intervenor son & hold question, we to the third In answer Nat. Indem. Co. cross-petitioner agreement between an that absent Austin, Texas, Mattox, Atty. Gen. Jim per- vehicle and a commercial owner of Tex., of Texas. State for defendant user, or more missive the same coverage for primary provide OPALA, Justice. insur- loss, shared loss shall be in the concurring provisions Absent for the ers. District Court States United insurer’s each apportionment, policies for of Oklahoma certified District Northern ratio its on the share will be based answer, the Uni- pursuant this court’s limit of Act, cumulative limit Questions bears of Law form Certification policies. 1601-1612, concurrent questions three 10 O.S.1981 §§ of law: in- owner’s Alternatively, when both pro- insurer permissive user’s and the policy in surer it in violation 1.Is loss same coverage for the vide insured to insurer and Oklahoma have permissive user the owner coverage of a liability insurance agree that issue,” comprised fairly it we found coverage problem collateral was Although the excess answer. questions for our certified "a brief as intervenor-insurer’s in the tendered agreed provide primary that one will cover- The owner’s insurer issued to the owner age, agreement providing liability coverage hold that such an for a we permissive tractor. The user borrowed the given primary coverage other effect and requested per- tractor. The owner that the treated as excess. missive user obtain insurance none of Alternatively, when the concur- permissive the tractor. The user owned a policies provides primary coverage, rent we trailer the intervenor-insurer. (a) hold that an excess clause controls over policy insuring the trailer limited cov- pro escape both a rata clause and an erage to an area within miles of the clause, (b) escape clause controls over a permissive user’s address. The (c) pro conflicting “other rata clause operating user was the borrowed tractor other, insurance” clauses cancel each mak- with his own trailer attached outside the ing policies primary. both 200-mile radius.3 ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION THE FEDERAL

ANATOMY OF *4 AND ANSWER LITIGATION QUESTION CERTIFIED I The federal district court has asked this questions court to decide these on the basis In legislature 1976 the Oklahoma enacted following Law,4 of the facts:2 Compulsory now codi- See 47 The federal court file in the case reflects that 2. The Letteer v. accident. While in some instances We consider the P.2d The federal court file in accident. The vened. light of the law in force at the time of the permissive amendments legislative user and the defendant railroad involved in the owner of the the owner’s insurer seeks a his proceedings, for the 1983 accident which involved the tractor-trailer. terial facts: between D and C." age for the tractor. 200 mile radius as Without 3. C borrowed tractor from A for his own use. 5. C was 4. A 2. C owned trailer insured with D. A— rated B— C—Hank J. Evens D—National Parties relevant 1. A owned tractor insured with B. obligation controversy Equity Spring Valley parties adopted requested purposes O.S.Supp.1982 Conservancy "CERTIFICATIONOF intent in prejudice user, operating may Mutual Insurance [1963], truck, STATEMENTOF FACTS Indemnity Company to the named defendants: resulted from an parties agree the widow of the of this Certified obligation be considered in of C to have insurance cover- Wholesale formerly to these that rule would not be of the certified District No. tractor-trailer outside of provided §§ estate following agreed user’s insurer inter- 7-600 et judgment declaring case of the insurers in parties enacted Nursery Company QUESTION in the indicates that the deceased 30, Okl., Question. question: ascertaining August subsequent permissive seq. following in future Incorpo- statutes, ma- The § the Oklahoma Statutes: The Sess.L.1985, § Sess.L.1984, Sess.L.1987, Ch. 5 dent amendments and additions to the Okla- homa Financial vant to the amendments deal with matters by any person arising tor vehicle owned from the Every person, security tain in force with security istered maintenance, operation or use of the vehicle. injury, motor vehicle c. from the in accordance with ”... permission insure insured vehicle with the arising subparagraph operation or use of such b. shall insure the 7-601(B) liability insurance: "As used in Article 1. ‘Owner's 7-600(1) 1,§ pertinent provisions assistance here because all may provide pertinent [E]very Ch. 279 ^[******] by death and' out of the for the liability imposed by are: liability imposed by are: this problem Ch. 181 2 and registered Ch. other of the named owner of a motor vehicle policy1. state, § dealer, shall, while this c of person, terms of 47 Responsibility 17 and Ch. for exclusions from person, except §§ payment payment property damage § VI, chapter § person other than a licensed used before us. For ownership, operating existing respect 154 and in this state which is 1; Okla.Sess.L.1986, An owner’s shall maintain in force out of the of 47 paragraph, using insured, express vehicle, named Ch. 253 at all §138 of loss of loss laws, to such vehicle law for Law, or that law for 7 of Title 47 of O.S.Supp.1982 O.S.Supp.1982 as maintenance, times, using against 1 and Okla. provided therein ownership, or subsequent * * § are sustained see Okla. post-acci- resulting resulting damages 3; implied bodily main- irrele- Okla. mo- reg- loss not Ch. an imposed by bodily Responsibility liability from the law for Financial in Article of the fied VI damage all injury, property mandate that sus- .5 Its terms death Act liability insurance owners maintain by any person arising vehicle tained out of the security at less not or other authorized maintenance, operation or use ownership, required by 47 O.S.1981 than the minimum purpose of ... manifest vehicle.”8 [a] Responsibility of the Financial 7-2046 § expressed legislature, of the in the text of exempt by unless a is statute. Act vehicle statute, provide compensation is to addition, operators of motor vehicles In injury to members of the or loss liability coverage required maintain are are with claims that When actionable. ex coverage, which does not unless such provides cov- policy expressly states it insured, provid operator clude the as erage compulsory required by Oklahoma’s by the owner.7 ed laws,9 must be insurance strictly against by a construed the insurer specifically requires The statute consistent with its terms resulting “security payment of loss standard 6. The The Financial The Financial are: ty O.S.1981 Chapter applicable to requirements acted different in each article are not §§ from the provided be Insurance Law.” such "Excess or additional property of also in of not costs, this section which does death subject of the son from death of accident, less accident has death, "No injury, any person arising of not less than Ten Thousand Dollars 000.00) injury to or ($10,000.00) 7-204(a) ($20,000.00) 7-600.1(B) are: subject for 7-301 addition to pertinent provisions of 47 subject in 1965 grant any policy pertinent provisions of 47 high excess of of not less than 7 of vehicle, death or §§ to a to legislative et because of less matter, one of liability imposed and if the accident two to said limit for coverage.” seq.). 7-201 et policy risk drivers. Title 47 O.S.1981 or bond for destruction and, others in the Financial or the than limit, because because person the owner Responsibility Responsibility Act is the resulted in lawful or more whole; i.e., proof unless such additional are property provisions though Articles II and III were en- or bond is necessarily coverage specified purpose. The Twenty out of injury to or exclusive seq.) separate shall be in of financial *5 coverage of of Ten any one persons damage related to bodily injury bodily injury coverage property exclusions allowed Responsibility of the Thousand by one Thousand bodily injury security person, provisions exclude Act also contains accordance effective ... §§ operation III overlapping nor of has Articles subject, law for in destruction accident.” accident 7-101 interest (47 sustained responsibili- Compulsory in excess of contents resulted codified Article to a limit to a has shall not said any O.S.1981 O.S.1981 ... and Dollars Dollars et bodily II with a if the ($10,- to or to or been limit and, seq. per- one un- use Act (47 VI or or in in in 8. 47 Intervenor-insurer 9. Mid-Continent Cas. Public in one quirements vehicle provided insurance ers. § cause Oklahoma in pursuant construction the laws under er’s quirements from the ments of exempt tion would be need entities. lowable Though court, exemption its § 7-602A which ration Commission ance compliance insurance graphical dence would somehow Neither " * * * ration this title." maintain empt 7-324 of policy its coverage ^[1987] not address laws brief-in-chief the intervenor-insurer the harmful does not Saf., from the coverage from Sections does this is exclusions Commission, Intervenor-insurer to 47 Motor Beavin v. State ex rel. was legislative pursuant argument’s any limitation statutory policy laws. The conclusion or whether in 47 the statute or not liability of the this court with the the intervenor-insurer was issued in permissible requirements other apply O.S.1981 not certified as a fact to carriers seem to are not to provide compulsory liability insurance coverage is to receive. differently be consistent with whether Corporation terms of indeed requirements compulsory for a intent that its event insurance are does to the other. assumed in a commercial 7-601(B). relating agency specifically 7-600 the or compliance required by §§ be in Okl., for a exempt any the compulsory not does geographical occurred does of other statutes 7-600—7-607. pertinent logically even when policy through specifically states treat and is determined from intervenor-insur- premise. Commission other argue 302 [1983]. not Department liability or high argue 7-602A from the re- held that a with commercial the was P.2d hereby ex- govern the argue legislative in deducible entity, to risk driv- therefore part: issued 7-607 of Young that be- that require- liability that al- Corpo- Corpo- limita- it was Texas, issued is evi- insur- that geo- this We the re- or in statutory policy A requires coverage with the it embodies.10 ion that the statute liability policy state, which confines to a just for losses within the as we do provide security 200-mile radius would not requires not hold that the statute for of the even members Oklahoma holding for losses in all states. Neither public. Though compulsory liability in- compellable by language of the statute specifically surance laws do not state how led its enactment. geographic far—in terms of radius —cover- Legislature Until such a time as the so extend,11 must must statutes geographical perimeter defines the of the broadly accomplish legisla- construed to statute, coverage required by the we hold dealing aim. tive When with one another geographical that a exclusion shall be law, conformity the insurer and judged according to reasonably whether it negotiate complies purpose with the manifest of the unreasonably range pro- limits the compulsory insurance laws.14 Although tection the law affords.12 jurisprudence National on this issue is compulsory 1982 amendments to the stat- addressing geo- scarce. Most of the cases contract,13 utes allow for some freedom of graphical exclusions in insurance that freedom cannot extend to territorial prior were decided to the enactment of light limitations which in of the statutes’ compulsory then, insurance laws. Since purpose produce manifest would an absurd New York court held a 100-mile exclusion result. Because a 200-mile radius limita- contrary void as to law.15 The Kansas point tion from in this Supreme Court condemned a household and state could exclude from a loss garage shop exclusion as violative of com- state, arising within the it is an unreason- pulsory insurance laws.16 South Car- able limitation. hold We that when olina court held a use limitation contra- compliance insurance is issued in com- vened its insurance laws.17 laws, at pulsory statutory policy insurance very minimum requires coverage Appeals The Oklahoma Court of held passenger actionable claims which arise with- that a exclusion opin- the state. We do not hold this compliance issued in with Articles II 10.See, Potter, might adjoin- Utilities Ins. Co. v. 188 Okl. be found unreasonable. The two *6 259, ing 105 P.2d 263 having longest [1940]. states common border state, negligent roam, with this into which the Okla- Responsibility require- The 11. Financial Act’s likely homa motorist is most to are Kan- proof responsibility ments for of financial require sas and Texas. Both of those states apply high expressly to risk drivers re- liability coverage their residents to secure quire liability coverage within the United States (specifically losses in Oklahoma for losses with- 7-324(b)(2) (d); § Canada. 47 O.S.1981 Canada). in United States and Tex.Rev.Civ. supra. see also footnote 7 Stat.Ann., Supp. art. 6701h 1977 and [Vernon’s 40-3107(b) 12. See and Kan.Stat.Ann. Co., 1986-1987] § Lovy Cal.App. v. Farm State Ins. 117 [1984], 834, 307, 312, Cal.Rptr. 3d 173 [1981]. 7-600(l)(c), The terms of 47 15. Kasson & Keller, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. 4, supra provide note that the owner’s 450, 760, 79 Misc.2d 359 N.Y.S.2d 765 [N.Y. "may provide for exclusions from in The 1974]. court said the exclusion was not existing accordance with laws.” by Regulations authorized the Rules and of the Superintendent of Insurance. 14. holding requiring only geographical that perhaps exclusions be reasonable would allow a 16. DeWitt v. 474, 478, Young, 229 Kan. court to find in the future a exclusion The court indicated that [1981]. allowable limiting coverage to losses within the state rea- compulsory exclusions under insurance laws policy covering sonable for an insurance a com- specifically must be set forth in the statute. only pizzas mercial vehicle used to deliver in hand, City. Oklahoma On the other should that Parker, pizzas Pennsylvania same vehicle ma, Nat. Mut. v. be used to deliver in Texho- Cas. Ins. [App. a town which S.C. straddles Oklahoma and S.E.2d 460-461 Panhandle, Texas borders in the the exclusion The limited 1984]. to vehicles limiting coverage purposes. to losses within the state not used for business or commercial coverage required the minimum Responsibility ably limits III18 of the Financial compulsory liability by the insurance laws. of the act and the intent contravened Act Looney in This court void.19 was therefore QUESTION II CERTIFIED considered the Group20 Ins. v. Farmers legisla appears it that the Once of the in- coverage of one from exclusion served, purpose has been the statute’s tive compliance in with policy issued sureds in a Consequently, free mandate is satisfied.24 The exclu- Law. Compulsory Insurance principles control as to dom-of-contract the insureds passed muster because sion required coverage in excess that vehicle of the statute’s not intended as question were end, by statute.25 To that of the law purpose The protected class.21 expressly provide that such additional laws of the public, not members is to shield subject provi coverage shall not be to the Moreover, household. named insured’s The sions of the statute.26 serves another family-household exclusion advantage accept geo find it to his for additional protecting graphical limitation policy interest —that public premium. in return for a lower on a vehicle friendly against collusive the insurer law, Though permissible under the all such exclusion lawsuits.22 strictly limitations and exclusions shall be here, family-household unlike the contest and in construed in favor of the insured27 strips indemnity Looney,23 exclusion object accomplished by favor of the actionable of the members policy.28 persons the stat- very class of claims—the Though liability policy is for the ben- protect. intended ute was third-party additional efit of claimants and insureds, contract they strangers are contends intervenor-insurer provisions even are bound its preclude parties not public policy does though they unaware of exclu- were liabil contracting to limit an insurer’s from parties contracted.29 for which the sions permis it not ity and that bound se the owner to user’s contract with sive QUESTION III CERTIFIED argument is This without cure insurance. policy is to be treated as An insurance with contrac merit. We deal here according to and will be enforced contract parties also with a to third but tual duties determining which insurer its terms. protection of the statutory mandate coverage, a brief over- provides radius limitation is public. A 200-mile common terms view of the appropri- contracts is used in insurance it unreason- to the extent that hence void Company, 18. See footnote 7 Wiley Travelers Insurance supra Arti- for discussion of P.2d 1295 [1975]. and III. cles XI 20. Hibdon Inc., Okl.App., The court said there group statute of ployees. Okl., 616 P.2d 1138 [1980]. from any right coverage Casualty of an insurer to P.2d other than was no mention Corporation 881-882 insured's em- exclude America, any Mutual Auto. *7 4 ute; 483; Nev. 642 [Mich.1975]. supra see 348, Estate also, 566 Ins. Co. v. DeWitt v. P.2d pertinent provisions of this stat- Neal 81, v. 83 7-600.1(B). Young, supra Shelly, Farmers ^[1977] 231 and State Farm Ins. N.W.2d note 16 at Exch., footnote 641, 93 Co., 27. Timmons Okl., Royal Globe Ins. 653 21. Group, supra note 20 Looney v. Farmers Ins. 907, [1982]. P.2d 913 1142. at 28. supra Company, Wiley v. Travelers 22. supra Group, Looney v. Ins. note 20 Farmers note 25 at 1296. at 1142. 29. 15 Co. v. Allstate Ins. O.S.1981 29 and 23. See supra at 1142. footnote 20 also, 362, Amick, Okl., [1984]; see P.2d 365 680 2d, Co., 24. Moser p. on Insurance 1:4 at 9 ed. Liberty 16 Couch [2d Ins. P.2d Mut. 731 406, 1983]. [1987]. 409 954 when, coverage provided is Primary trigger

ate.30 surance” which would escape policy, hand, under the terms of the the insurer is clause. On the other we hold that regard any liable without to other insur- escape pro between an clause and a rata coverage coverage clause, ance available.31 Excess escape prevail clause will and when, secondary coverage provided is pro coverage rata pri- will be deemed policy, under the terms of the the insurer is mary.37 any for a loss after liable compounded The conflict coverage insurance —has been ex- —other policies when concurrent have “other insur pro policy hausted.32 A in a rata clause ance” clauses which cancel each other. proportionate limits to a share They may provide only each excess cover relation to all available for the leaving primary coverage, no or both clause, escape same risk.33 An also known escape disclaiming have clauses liabili clause, as a no disclaims ty if other insurance is available to cover liability if other insurance is available.34 the loss. policies When concurrent have Questions apportion of conflict and such “other insurance” clauses which can among ment of between or insur other, cel they each we hold that are mutu ers arise when more than one covers repugnant ally disregarded, are to be definition, By course, the same loss. with the loss shared the insurers on a primary coverage up to the limits of the pro rata basis.38 Where the insurers have applied will be to a loss before resort designated in their the same meth is had to excess Further apportionment, od of the contracts will con more, policy provides pro rata concurring provisions trol. Absent ap provides only and another excess portionment, coverage of the loss is to be coverage, pro rata is to be treat pro according shared on a rata basis primary.35

ed as respective policy ratio each limit bears to escape When one has an poli cumulative limit of all concurrent any liability clause that disclaims if example, there is cies. For if one insurer has a poli $100,000, other available insurance and $200,000 another limit of another ¾ n cy provides only coverage, $300,000, excess we fol and a third pay the first would general low the liability” $100,000, trend that the “no up of the loss the second n of the loss policy is primary coverage.36 $200,000 deemed pay up This would conclusion is based on the rationale pay up $300,-0 the third would ½ the loss excess is not “other available in- 00.39 30. 2d, Services, generally, Logistics Couch on Insurance 16 Inc. v. Mut. Ma Offshore Office, 485, §§ 62:41 —62:92 ed. rine F.Supp. [2nd 1983]. 462 493-494 [E.D.La. Associated Indem. v. Ins. Co. North 1978] 31. Ind. Finishes & Ins., Systems v. Amer. Univ. America, 807, 258, 267, Ill.App.3d 68 25 Ill.Dec. 382, modified, [Ore.App.1986], 720 P.2d 385 80 529, 386 N.E.2d [1979]. 538 743, Or.App. 724 P.2d 333 See also Underwriters, Union Indemn. Ins. Co. v. Certain Co., Songer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. 91 1015, F.Supp. 1017 [S.D.Tex.1985]. 248, 715, 718, Ill.App.3d 46 Ill.Dec. 414 N.E.2d 768, 771 [1980].

32. Brownsville Fabrics, Co., Inc. v. Ins. Gulf 332, [Tex.Civ.App.1977] S.W.2d and Union Western Cas. and Sur. v. Universal Underwrit- Underwriters, supra Indem. Ins. Co. v. Certain ers, Kan. 657 P.2d 580 [1983]. note 31 at 1017. Bill Atkin Volkswagen, McClafferty, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Horace Mann Ins. and Wolverine [Mont.1984] [W.D.Pa.1982], F.Supp. affirme *8 d Columbus, Ins. Co. v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. of 722 F.2d 664 [3rd Cir.1983]. O., 1182, (applying 415 F.2d [6th Cir.1969] 1185 law). 34. Michigan Note: The generally, Co., Dilem- Maryland Cas. Co. v. Horace Mann Ins. Coverage; ma Concurrent Carriers Insurance supra note at 33 909. Co., Policyholders Co. v. American Insurance 32 Thurston National Insurance Co. v. (discussing Zurich Me.L.Rev. 471 [1980] methods for Co., 619, Insurance F.Supp. assigning liability coverage 296 [W.D.Okl. 623 when concurrent ex- ists). 1969].

955 to those allow an us, ments and additions laws the owner In the case before per requested operator policy to exclude an from vehicle owner’s the commercial coverage primary secure user to existing missive law.45 in accordance with stipulated, tractor. The Moreover, required by operator is facts whether use do not this court’s liability only insurance reflect to maintain statute The secured. coverage was indeed from the owner’s cover- if he is excluded that the tractor was facts do show certified may age.46 federal court find from the insurer, by the owner’s insured guide- policies and from the terms of the user) at (owned permissive by the trailer opinion in this that both lines set forth by the tractor was tached to the primary coverage, that nei- policies provide private user’s insurer.40 permissive provides primary or that ther of an expand the terms agreement cannot coverage. provides primary Stat- 41 given consid insurance but implicated only insur- utory policy is when poli commercial concurrent eration when they are in deny liability, not when ers coverage for the provide primary cies all provide primary dispute as to which will setting, it In commercial loss.42 same parties to the particularly beneficial may be agreement to as public for an con Lastly, owner’s insurer coverage to primary sign responsibility not issued in con tends that its was posi user who is a better hauling use for templation of the tractor’s event, loss.43 In that prevent a tion to oil. The insurer highly flammable crude policies that are indemnity other available finding permit a urges equity will not This as excess. primary may be treated the true fact of primary view, applied conformably must be argu use was concealed. the tractor’s general principle that contractual insurer known that had the owner’s ment is by agree expanded obligations cannot be being to haul a haz contract,44 was used may the tractor strangers ments with substance, premiums would nec policy so secured ardous not be invoked when has a risk. only pro higher rata to cover the provides essarily have been clause. conflicting “other insurance” bring no comfort to the contention can That instances, the loss will be shared the latter has said that when a This court insurer. pro rata on a basis. coverage for the user who policy provides general per given the insured’s has been liability insur- Oklahoma’s mission, by the the loss is covered determination do not dictate the ance laws use was not con- though particular 1982 amend- even coverage. The 21, DeSerio, Leasing [Fla. 470 So.2d 24 v. reflects that Truck court file in this case 40. The federal event, v. App. Cas. Ins. Co. and Carolina alleged Dist.1985] 4 in the harmful when involved 304, Co., 314 [5th Ins. 569 F.2d use as a Underwriters connected for tractor and trailer were Cir.1978]; Indemnity Conti v. but see National possible of the insur- fact that neither unit. The 575, Ins., Md.App. 487 A.2d 1191 61 and the nental both the tractor er's covered [1985]. each not be would not mean that trailer up for the total loss. to its limits liable Primary See, Liberty Indemnity Mutual vehicle will result Co. v. on either 43. Pacific 793, Co., Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d See Insurance Co. 75 limits. Insurance 269 Co., 559, Indemnity Royal 429 North America 565 of F.2d 1014, and State Auto. 1019 [6th Cir.1970] Co., Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State Farm 238, Ins. Mut. Ins. Ins. Co. v. Underwriters 44. Carolina Cas. Underwriters, Co., Cir.1972]. 240 Inc. v. Auto- supra [6th 456 F.2d note Co., p. supra 902 note 41 at Mut. Ins. Owners p. Underwriters, Appleman supra § note 41 at 4911 and 8A Inc. v. Auto-Owners Am. 41. See Co., Cir.1983] [7th 719 F.2d Mut. Ins. Practice, Appleman, Law and and 8A pertinent of 47 p. text 1981]. at 45. For the [rev. 7-601(B), supra. see footnote 4 §§ 7-600 Exchange Liberty Ins. Mut. Truck Ins. 503, 505, pertinent text of 47 For the N.E. Ill.App.3d Ill.Dec. 7-601(B), supra. footnote 4 [1981]; see Car & also Executive see 2d *9 templated.47

DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS,

and KAUGER JJ., SUMMERS, concur. J.,

HODGES, I concurs in Part voting upon Parts II and III opinion. WILSON, J., part

ALMA concurs in part. dissents in Justice, WILSON, concurring

ALMA part dissenting part: opinion

I concur insofar as this

holds a exclusion void as con-

trary to 36 O.S.1981 any implication

I dissent to limiting coverage

construed as which has for, though

been contracted statutory beyond well be minimum

requirements. factually This issue is not

presented by this case. Oklahoma, Appellee,

STATE of FISH, Appellant.

Alex

No. 66355.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec.

As 4, 1988. Corrected March Preble, Spears