finding a claimant was entitled to UM coverage despite a negligent co-employee's immunity because the coverage was intended to compensate an insured for a loss for which the tortfeasor is unable to make full compensation, and the insurer assumed the risk
How later courts described this case
- finding a claimant was entitled to UM coverage despite a negligent co-employee's immunity because the coverage was intended to compensate an insured for a loss for which the tortfeasor is unable to make full compensation, and the insurer assumed the risk
- where damages sought in action to recover under underin-sured/uninsured endorsement on policy are “unquestionably by reason of personal injuries,” that is, for wrongful death, even though the insurer's liability is based upon its contractually based duty to pay under the UM endorsement of the policy, the UM insurer is also liable for prejudgment interest pursuant to Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 727(A)(2) because “such a suit is in essence nothing other than a suit to recover for personal injuries.”
- the uninsured motorist carrier does not stand in the tortfeasor’s shoes so that coverage is allowed even if the insured would not be legally entitled to recover from the uninsured motorist because of exclusivity of worker’s compensation
- “Just as in Karlson, [] the intention of the parties was that appellant, not the insured, would assume the risk that the insured might suffer a loss for which the tortfeasor could not make compensation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPALA, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from Part II for the reasons articulated in Barfield v. Barfield, Okl., 742 P.2d 1107, 1113 (1987) (Opala, J., dissenting), and Karlson v. City of Oklahoma City, Okl., 711 P.2d 72, 75-76 (1985) (Opala, J., dissenting). I concur in result in Part III.