 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BP America9/20/2005
__ P.3d __
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified two first impression questions of Oklahoma law to this Court under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2001 §§1601, et seq. The federal court asks:
"1. Whether, under Oklahoma Law, the term 'any insured' in an 'Auto Exclusion' clause of a commercial general liability policy excludes from coverage all automobile occurrences attributable to any of the insureds?; and
2. Whether, under Oklahoma Law, the inclusion of both an 'Auto Exclusion' clause and a 'separation of insureds' clause in a commercial general liability policy creates an ambiguity in the contract?"
We answer the initial question, "yes". Our answer to the second question is "no". Our first determination: is supported by the plain language of the commercial general liability policy (general liability policy) clearly excluding all coverage for automotive incidents involving any insured; aligns us with the overwhelming majority of courts addressing the issue; and is supported by this Court's jurisprudence. As to the second question, we are convinced that the position taken by those jurisdictions recognizing that a clear and unambiguous exclusion should not be negated by a severability clause is consistent with Oklahoma law. We also find significant the clear and unambiguous exclusion coupled with no indication that any premium was paid for that automotive liability coverage under the general liability policy.
CERTIFIED FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June of 2001, the plaintiff/appellant, B.P. America, Inc. (insured/BP), entered into a construction contract with Doyal W. Rowland Construction, Inc. (Rowland). Besides being obligated under the contract to do certain construction work, the contract also required B.P. to obtain $1,000,000.00 in general liability coverage and automotive liability insurance.
As required under the construction contract, the defendant/appellee, State Auto and Casualty Insurance Company (insurer), issued two policies. The first was issued on January 20, 2002, covering the general liability requirements of the contract. It listed Rowland as the named insured and BP as an additional insured. Less than a month later, on February 7, 2002, the second policy issued covering automotive liability containing the same designations for Rowland and BP as named insured and additional insured, respectively. Both policies were in full force and effect from April 16, 2002, to April 16, 2003.
On July 23, 2002, a multi-car accident occurred involving a dump truck driven by a Rowland employee. Three individuals were fatally injured and a fourth sustained significant injuries. Multiple lawsuits were filed as a result of the accident. In different combinations, the suits named the employee, Rowland, BP and the insurer as defendants. All the personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits were settled with the insurer contributing $1,000,000.00 to the settlement pursuant to the automotive liability policy.
On June 16, 2004, the insured filed suit against the insurer in federal court seeking recovery under the general liability policy. Recognizing that the lawsuit involved issues of first impression Oklahoma law, the federal court certified questions to this Court pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2001 §§1601, et seq. We set a briefing cycle which was concluded on August 16, 2005.
WELL-SETTLED OKLAHOMA STANDARDS FOR INSURANCE CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
Insurance policies are contracts interpreted as a matter of law. Parties may contrac
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.
|
|