 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ruiz v. Monumental General Ins. Co.2/18/1992
s co-existent and consistent with recovery through the Workers' Compensation Act. Barfield v. Barfield, 742 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1987).
Additionally, it has long been the law in Oklahoma that insurance contracts prepared by the insurer will be liberally construed as against the insured and strictly construed as against the insurer. Bankers' Reserve Life Co. v. Rice, 99 Okla. 184, 226 P. 324 (1924). "Accident" is a crucial condition of Monumental's liability under its policy, yet it chose not to define the term. Monumental must therefore accept the closest scrutiny of its own policy provisions.
Finally, in actions for benefits under accident policies, the question whether an injury or death results from an "accident", and the related questions as to time, place and manner in which the insured sustained his injury, are normally for the jury. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co. v. Brown, 259 P.2d 308 (Okla. 1953). Only where there is no substantial controversy as to a material fact may the court decide the case as a matter of law.
Under the record presented to it, the trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Ruiz' disability did not result from an accidental bodily injury . Accordingly, the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Monumental is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HUNTER, J., concurs.
JONES, Judge, concurring in result:
Consideration of Workers' Compensation Law has nothing to do with this case.
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|