 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ply v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh11/12/2003
__ P.3d __
Plaintiff, Dale Ply, suffered severe electric burns in a tragic accident that occurred while he worked on overhead electric wires from the raised bucket of a bucket truck. Plaintiff's employer, Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., owned the bucket truck and insured it through National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with an uninsured motorist (UM) endorsement. Plaintiff recovered workers' compensation benefits for his accidental injuries and now seeks to recover UM benefits.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against the UM insurer, alleging that the accident arose out of Elliot Company's negligent use and negligent maintenance of the bucket truck. Insurer moved for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff's accident did not fall within the scope of the UM coverage because 1) his injuries were not caused by the actual use of the bucket truck by another person, and 2) even if Elliot Company negligently maintained the bucket truck, his injuries were not caused by such negligence.
At the summary judgment hearing, the court determined that there is no Oklahoma law controlling the questions presented. Accordingly, the federal district court, pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.Supp.1997, ยงยง 1601 et seq., certified the following questions of state law to this Court:
1. Whether an employer's or supervisor's instructions or directions to its employee regarding work to be performed by that employee, which involves the use of a company-owned vehicle, can constitute "use" of the vehicle by the employer or supervisor so as to give rise to potential liability under Oklahoma's uninsured motorist laws; and
2. Whether allegations of an employer's non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits.
We reformulate the first question within the confines of the certified statement of facts. We answer the two questions of state law in the affirmative.
I. Statement of Facts
The federal court certified the following statement of facts:
1. Plaintiff, Dale Ply ("Ply"), received severe electrical burns, resulting in amputation of both his arms, in an accident which occurred on May 17, 1996, while he was working in the raised bucket of a bucket truck owned by his employer, Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. ("Elliot Company"). 2. The accident occurred when Ply was "tying in" electrical wires on a job near Broken Bow, Oklahoma, and came into contact with an energized line. 3. The bucket truck in which Ply was working at the time of the accident was owned by Elliot Company and insured by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"), which carried the uninsured motorist coverage for Elliot Company's vehicles. 4. Ply was working alone in the bucket truck when his accident occurred with the knowledge of and pursuant to directions and instructions he received earlier that day from his supervisor. 5. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit that Elliot Company's Safety Handbook required that aerial bucket equipment should only be operated when at least two persons completely familiar with the hydraulic controls were present. 6. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit filed against National Union seeking uninsured motorist benefits that the accident resulted from the "use" of the bucket truck by Elliot Company or by Ply's supervisor, also an employee of Elliot Company. 7. The only vehicle which was present at the scene at the time of Ply's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|