# Appendix — Young v. Fidelity Union Life Insurance

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0289%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1982
- **Citation:** 459 U.S. 840

## Text

APPENDIX A

NOT FOR ROUTINE PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

[Filed March 23, 1982]

ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a minor, )
NORBERT NELSON YOUNG AND )
CHARLOTTE MARIE YOUNG, GLENN)
O. YOUNG, in person and Administrator)
of the Estate of Thomas Alexander

Young, and Father and next friend of
Ulrich Waldemar Young and Norbert
Nelson Young, No. 80-1944
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.
FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, JAMES M. STURDIVANT,
GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,
JOHNSON & BAKER & GLEN RINE-
HART, as agents and attorneys,
Defendants-Appellees.

Ne ee —Vů— —— — — ee ee ee

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Oklahoma
D.C. No. 79-C-629

Submitted on the briefs: 95 K
Glenn O. .
tiffs-Appellants.

Elsie Cox Draper, GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,

JOHNSON & BAKER, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Defen-
dants-Appellees.

2a
[APPENDIX)

Before PICKETT, McWILLIAMS and DOYLE

PICKETT, Circuit Judge

After examining the briefs and the appellate record,
this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that
oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R App. P. 34 (a);
Tenth Circuit R.10(e). This cause is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.

On September 16, 1974, Thomas Alexander Young com-
pleted an application for a $20,900.00 double indemnity life

sured’s mother. No more premiums were paid. The policy
was issued on September 18, 1974 and sent to the writing
agent who inquired of the insured as to delivery. On De-
cember 16, 1974, the policy was sent to the Kansas home
of the insured and actually received by him on December
22, 1974. The insured was killed on February 14, 1975. The
insurance company denied liability asserting that the policy
had lapsed because of non-payment cf premiums.
Charlotte Meier Young, as a primary beneficiary, and
assignee of Glenn O. Young, in trust for the two younger
sons, brought an action in the Creek County, Oklahoma
state court, to recover the proceeds of the policy. The in-
surance company employed the Tulsa, Oklahoma law firm
of Gable, Gotwals, Rubin, Fox, Johnson and Baker to rep-
resent it in the pending litigation. James M. Sturdivant,

3a

{APPENDIX}
a member of the law firm, was assigned to the case which
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma A motion for summary judgment
was filed for the insurance company alleging that the policy
was not in effect at the date of the death of the insured.
Before the disposition of this motion, Glenn O. Young, in
his own behalf, as administrator of the estate of his son,
Thomas, and as next friend of his two minor sons, moved
to intervene in the case. The trial court denied this mo-
tion stating that Glenn O. Young had assigned his interest
in the policy to his wife, Charlotte, and had no interest
therein. The court also held that interests of the minor
sons, if any, was represented by their mother, Charlotte,
and that the estate of the deceased son had no interest in
the litigation. No appeal was taken to the court’s denial
cf this motion.

In the pretrial proceedings, recognizing that only two
monthly premiums had been paid, the critical issue was
whether the policy became effective on the datc of the
acceptance of the application or the date that the policy
was manually delivered to the insured. This issue was
determined on motion for summary judgment filed by the
parties. The trial court, following a hearing on these mo-
tions, concluded that the unambiguous terms of the appli-
cation and the policy fixed the effective date as Septem-
ber 16, 1974 and that on the date of the insured’s death,
it had lapsed for non-payment of premiums. This court
affirmed Young v. Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company,
597 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1979) in which the court stated:

Based on the undisputed facts, the effective date of
the insurance policy was September 16, 1974, and as
only two monthly premiums were paid, the policy by
its terms had lapsed when the insured met his un-
timely death on February 14, 1975. The trial court,
X
97˙˙ ee a

(APPENDIX) sas

After the judgment in the first action became final,
Glenn O. Young, in person and as administrator of the
estate of Thomas Alexander Young, also as father and next
friend of his two younger sons, together with his wife,
Charlotte, brought this action in the District Court of Creek
County, Oklahoma to recover on the same policy which
was the subject of the first action. In addition to the in-

10

The issues presented by this appeal are

* — Gian te to ——

5a

(APPENDIX)
is not bound by the allegations in plaintiff's pleadings but
may resort to other means to determine if a cause of action
exists as to that defendant. Dodd v. Fawcett Publications,
Inc., 329 F.2d 82 (10th Cir. 1964); Wilson v. Republic Iron
& Steel Company et al, 257 U.S. 92 (1921); Smoot v. Chi-
cago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, 378 F.2d
879 (10th Cir. 1967).

There is a suggestion in the vague allegations of the
pleadings, the extensive arguments at the hearing on the
motion for summary judgment and the briefs filed in this
court that the insurance company and its attorneys joined
in a sinister scheme or plot to fraudulently mislead the
District Court and this court in finding against them in the
first case on the simple issue of the effective date of the
policy. The record in the first and in this case is com-
pletely devoid of any indication of misconduct on the part
of the attorneys for the insurance company. The inclusion
cf them as defendants is an obvious sham and frivolous.
The court did not err in sustaining the motion for sum-
mary judgment and overruling the motion to remand.

It is next urged that the trial court erred in sustain-
ing the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment
for the reason that the plaintiffs were bound by a final
judgment in a former case. Res judicata means that a mat-
ter has been previously settled by a final judgment. (Black's
Law Dictionary; 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments §395, p. 559).

The doctrine is firmly established in the law. It is in
the nature of an estoppel, the purpose of which is designed
to put an end to litigaiion of claims which have been previ-
ously determined by final judgment. It bars all parties and
their privies from recovery on matters which have been
duly adjudicated or should have been adjudicated in prior
litigation. In Guarantee Acceptance Corporation v. Fidelity
Mortgage Investors, 544 F.zd 449 (10th Cir. 1976), this court

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a prior adjudica-

tion between the parties or their privies on the same

6a
LAPPENDIX)
cause of action is conclusive as to all matters
are, were or should have been litigated. Spence v.
Latting, 512 F.2d 93 (10th Cir. 1975) cert. , 423
U.S. 896. |

In Brown v. Felson, 442 U.S. 127, the court said: .
Res judicata ensures the finality of decisions. Under

prior proceedings. Chicott County Drainage Dist v.
Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 378 (1940); 1B J.
Moore, Federal Practice 90.405 [1] (2d ed. 1974). Res
judicata thus encourages reliance on judicial decisions,
bars vexatious litigation, and frees the courts to re-
solve other disputes.

See aiso Katzburg v. Krebs et al., 545 F.2d 104 (10th
Cir. 1976); Spence v. Latting, 512 F.2d 93 (10th Cir. 1975)
cert. denied, 423 U.S. 896.

of
the insurance ccmpany and their agents, after the death
or

{APPENDIX}

in the first action. The final judgment was contrary to the
contentions of the Youngs and they cannot be relitigated.

Relying on Oklahoma statute, Title 36 O.S. §3629(B),?

court allowed the claim in the amount of $5,165.00. There
was ample evidence to support the reasonableness of this
award.

i

® Title 36 OS. §3629(b) reads: It shall be the duty of the insurer
A
to the insured within ninety (90) days of receipt

apply to uninsured motorist coverage. 36 OS. '3629(B) (1977 Supp.)

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH TERM — April 22, 1982

Before Honorable Robert H. McWilliams, Honorable Wil-
liam E. Doyle, and Honorable John C. Pickett, Circuit
Judges

ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a Minor, )
NORBERT NELSON YOUNG, and CHAR- )
)

demar Young and Norbert Nelson Young,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs
FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, JAMES M. STURDIVANT, GABLE,
GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX, JOHNSON &
BAKER, and GLEN RINEHART, as Agents

and Attorneys,
Defendants-Appellees.

— ——— ee ee ee ee ee ee —

No. 80-1944

This matter comes on for consideration of appellant's
petition for rehearing filed in the captioned cause.
Upon consideration whereof, the petition for rehear-

ing is denied.
(s) Howard K. Phillips

HOWARD K. PHILLIPS, Clerk

APPENDIX C

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Filed August 8, 1980)

ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a minor, )
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, et al.,

Defendants.

— — — et — ee”

It having come to the Court's attention a scrivener’s
error was made in the Order and Judgment heretofore
entered in this case on July 29, 1980, in that the amount
of Judgment to be awarded was reflected as $3,651.25, when
it should have been $5,165.00,

IT IS ORDERED the Order entered July 29, 1980, and
the Judgment entered July 29, 1980, be amended to show
the correct amount of $5,165.00 instead of $3,651.25.

ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1980.

(s) Thomas R. Brett

THOMAS R. BRETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPENDIX D

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

[Filed July 29, 1980)
ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a minor, )

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 79-C-629-BT
FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, et al., N
Defendants.

— —— dvb ee ee

ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before the under -
signed Judge on July 2, 1980, on the Motion for New
Trial and for Rehearing filed by plaintiffs; hearing on the
Counterclaim of the defendant, Fidelity Union Life Insur-
ance Company. At the conclusion of the arguments and
evidence the Court took the matters under advisement.

The Court has reviewed the Motion for New Trial
and for Rehearing filed by plaintiffs; has considered the
ent re file, including the additional authorities presented
by plaintiffs in their Motion to Include and Cite Additional
Authorities at Oral Argument on Motion for New Trial;
the briefs filed by the parties; the oral argument of the
parties.

The Court is not persuaded by plaintiffs’s arguments
that the previous order entered on June 3, 1900, is incor-
rect. The Court, therefore, finds plaintiffs’ Motion for New
Trial and for Rehearing should be overruled.

In the Order entered June 3, 1980, the Court made the
following finding relevant to the counterclaim of Fidelity
Union Life Insurance Company: “This order is not dis-
positive of the Counterclaim and it will be set for hearing.”

2d
[APPENDIX)

Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company seeks to re-
cover attorney fees pursuant to 36 O.S. §3629(B) (1977
Supp.) which provides, in pertinent part:

“It shall be the duty of the insurer, receiving a procf
of loss, to submit a written offer of settlement or re-
jection of the claim to the insured within ninety (90)
days of receipt of that proof of loss. Upon judgment
rendered to either party, costs and attorney fees shall
be allowed to the prevailing party.”

Case 76-C-30-C, styled “Charlotte Meier Young, etc.,
Plaintiff, vs. Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company, De-
fendant”, decided by the Honorable H. Dale Cock, and
affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v.
Fidelity U. Life Ins. Co., 597 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1979), was
filed prior to the enactment of 36 O.S. §3629(B) (1977
Supp.) and Fidelity claimed no attorney fees in that case,
nor was Fidelity entitled to claim attorney fees in that
case.

Fidelity Unicn Life Insurance Company contends ii is
entitled to recover attorney fees and costs in this action as
the prevailing party.

The evidence and exhibits in the present case (attached
to the Answer cf Fidelity Union Life Insurance Ccmpany)
reveal plaintiffs made an oral demand for the benefits they
claimed on March 6, 1975; a written demand on March 12,
1975; filed a Casualty Report and Proof of Death Claim on
March 19, 1975. The evidence further shows Fidelity Union
Life Insurance Company denied in writing the benefits on
March 6 and April 18, 1975. The Court finds this ccrres-
pondence sufficient to bring the defendant insurance com-
pany within the confines of 36 O.S. §3629(B) (1977 Supp.)
and entitle it to claim attorney fees and costs.

At the hearing, Fidelity Union Life Insurance Com-
pany filed an Affidavit in open Court, with an exhibit at-
tached, which revealed the claim of the insurance ccmpany

3d
[APPEND: x)
for legal fees as follows: 79.75 hours at $45.00 per hour —
$3,588.75; 1.25 hcurs at $50.00 per hour — $62.50; total claim
—- $3,651.25.

Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company also called as
a witness Mr. David Fist, a member of the bar of this Court,
who after being duly sworn and qualified, testified as to
the reasonableness of the fees sought by the insurance com-
pany. Mr. Fist testified in his opinion the claimed attorney
fees were low and mcdest and certainly reasonable.

The Court, upon reviewing the entire record and the
evidence adduced, finds the attorney fees sought in the
amount of $3,651.25 are reasonable.

The Court finds Fidelity Union Life Insurance Com-
pany is entitled to recover attorney fees in the sum of
$3,651.25 pursuant to 36 O.S. §3629(B) (1977 Supp.) and
is entitled to have judgment rendered in that amount on
its counterclaim.

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial and Motion to Re-
consider be overruled.

2. Defendant, Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company
is entitled to recover attorney fees in the amount of $3,-
651.25 on its counterclaim and have judgment entered in
its favor and against Charlotte Marie Young; Glenn O.
Young, as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Alex-
ander Young; and Glenn O. Young, as Father and Next
Friend of Ulrich Waldemar Young and Norbert Nelson
Young.

ENTERED this 29 day of July, 1980.

s) Thomas R. Brett

THOMAS R. BRETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPENDIX E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

[Filed July 29, 1980]

ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a minor, )
et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs. .

FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, et ai.,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Order entered simultaneously with
this Judgment, IT IS ORDERED Judgment be entered in
favor of the defendant, Fidelity Union Life Insurance Com-
pany, and against Charlotte Marie Young; Glenn O. Young,
as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Alexander
Young; and Glenn O. Young, as Father and Next Friend

of Ulrich Waldemar Young and Norbert Nelson Young, in
the amount of $3,651.25.

ENTERED this 29 day of July, 1980.
(s) Thomas R. Brett

THOMAS R. BRETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPENDIX F

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR
CREEK COUNTY, SAPULPA DIVISION,
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ULRICH WALDEMAN YOUNG, a Minor, )
NORBERT NELSON YOUNG, and CHAR- )
LOTTE MARIE YOUNG, and GLENN O.
YOUNG in person and as the Adminis-
trator of tie Estate of Thomas Alexander
Young, and Father and next friend of
Ulrich Waldemar Young and Norbert
Nelson Young,

Plaintiffs, No. C-79-301
vs.

FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, JAMES M. STURDIVANT,
GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,
JOHNSON & BAKER, and GLEN RINE-
HART, as Agents and Attorneys,
Defendants.

REMOVAL PETITION AND REMOVAL BOND

COME NOW the defendants, the Fidelity Union Life
Insurance Company, James M. Sturdivant, and Gable, Got-
wals, Rubin, Fox, Johnson & Baker, and file herewith the
Removal Petition and Removal Bond filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma,
on October 5, 1979, styled as above.

(s) Elsie Draper
GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,
JOHNSON & BAKER
20th Floor, Fourth National Bldg.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
918/582-9201

Attorneys for Defendants

ee ee —

APPENDIX G

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

[Filed January 30, 1976]

CHARLOTTE MEIER YOUNG, in person )
and es Assignee in trust for her minor
sons, Norbert Nelson and Ulrich Walde-

mar Young,
Plaintiff as Respondent,
vs. No. 76-C-30
FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas,

— —ů— —ꝛ —ꝛ⏑M —2—yV: —ꝛ4ꝛ-⏓ ——

Defendant as Petitioner,
PETITION FOR REMOVAL

TO: THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTH-
ERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Comes now the Defendant, FIDELITY UNION LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock company, and for its
petition for removal respectfully shows:

1. On January 13, 1976, an action was commenced
against petitioner, FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, in the District Court of
Creek County, Oklahoma, entitled “Charlotte Meier Young,
in person and as Assignee in trust for her minor sons, Nor-
bert Nelson and Ulrich Waldemar Young, Plaintiff, v. Fi-
delity Union Life Insurance Company, a stock company,
Dallas, Texas, Defendant”, being Cause No. C-76-14 in said
Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff in said action caused to
be issued a summons out of the District Court of Creek
County, Oklahoma, which summons and a copy of the
Plaintiff's ccmplaint were served upon The Honorable Ger-
ald Grimes, State Insurance Commissioner for the State

{[APPENDIX)

of Oklahoma, as statutory service agent for FIDELITY
UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock company,
on January 14, 1976, requiring answer on or before Febru-
ary 12, 1976. Thereafter, said summons and complaint were
forwarded by The Honorable Gerald Grimes, State Insur-
ance Commissioner, to FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSUR-
ANCE COMPANY, a stock company, same being received
on January 16, 1976. Full, true, and correct copies of the
complaint, summons, and letter of transmitial from the
State Insurance Commissioner to FIDELITY UNION LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock company, are hereto
attached, which constitute all of the pleadings, process,
and orders served upon petitioner in such action.

2. The above described action is one of which this
court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of Title
28, United States Code, Section 1332, and is one which may
be removed to this court by petitioner, Defendant herein,
pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code,
Section 1441, in that it is a civil action wherein the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and is between
citizens and residents of different states. At the time this
acticn was commenced, the Plaintiff was and still is a citi-
zen and resident of the City of Sapulpa, Creek County,
State of Oklahoma, and the Defendant, at the time of com-
mencement of this action, was and still is a stock company
organized under the Texas Laws, with its principal office
and place of business located at Dallas, Texas, by reason
whereof there is a complete diversity of citizenship be-
tween Plaintiff and Defendant in said action.

3. Petitioner herewith files a bond with good and
sufficient surety conditioned, as provided by Title 28, United
States Code, Section 1446(d) that it will pay all costs and
disbursements incurred by reason of this removal proceed-
ing should it be determined that the case was not remov-
able or was improperly removed. |

3g
[APPENDIX)

WHEREFORE, petitioner, FIDELITY UNION LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock company, respectfully
prays that the above action now pending against it in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, be removed
therefrom to this court.

(s) Jim M. Sturdivant
James M. Sturdivant for

GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,
JOHNSON & BAKER

2010 Fourth National Bank Bldg.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

(918) 582-9201

Attorneys for Defendant and Petitioner,

FIDELITY UNION LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )/(

)( ss.
COUNTY OF TULSA 50

James M. Sturdivant, of lawful age, being first duly
sworn on oath states:

That he is the attorney for the Defendant, FIDELITY
UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock company,
petitioner herein, and makes this affidavit for the reason
that the Defendant is not a resident of Tulsa County and
is absent therefrom; that affiant has read the foregoing
Petition for Removal, is familiar with the contents thereof,

(APPENDIX) “
and believes that the facts therein set forth are true and

correct.
(s) Jim M. Sturdivani
James M. Sturdivant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of

January, 1976.
(s) Dorothy A. Balis

Notary Public

My Commission res:
6-24-79

APPENDIX H

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

[Filed November 6, 1979]

ULRICH WALDEMAR YOUNG, a Minor, )
NORBERT NELSON YOUNG and
CHARLOTTE MARIE YOUNG, GLENN
O. YOUNG, IN PERSON AND AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
THOMAS ALEXANDER YOUNG AND
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF UL-
RICH WALDEMAR YOUNG AND NOR-
BERT NELSON YOUNG,
Plaintiffs,

1

VS.

FIDELITY UNION INSURANCE
COMPANY, a stock company, Dallas,
Texas, JAMES M. STURDIVANT,
GABLE, GOTWALS, RUBIN, FOX,
JOHNSON & BAKER, and GLEN RINE-
HART, AS AGENT AND ATTORNEYS,
Defendants.

ll ee ee ee

PLAINTIFFS WITHDRAWAL OF DISMISSAL
AND MOTION TO REMAND

to minute order of the Honorable H. Dale
Cook, U. S. District Judge, entered under date of October
24, 1979, plaintiffs confess and agree to defendants’ Motion
to Strike Dismissal and in lieu thereof move to remand this
cause to the District Court of Creek County, from which
the same was unlawfully and illegally removed in violation
of the laws and statutes of the United States. (See 28

U.S.C. 1441.)
(s) Glenn O. Young
Glenn O. Young, pro se
and Attorney for Plaintiffs.

APPENDIX I

[Page 3 of Brief of Appellants’ in the United States
Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit,
Dated November, 1980]

. In event plaintiffs contentions that the Court erred
in overruling their Motion to Remand is sustained, consid-
eration of all other issues will, of course, be irrelevant
since if issued without jurisdiction, such determinations
are without binding force or effect and need not be here
further considered or adjudicated save by an order to va-
cate for want of jurisdiction.

POINTS AND ISSUES
I

There was an absence of feders! jurisdiction in the
U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma,
and for said reason, the trial judge erred in summarily
overuling and denying Appellants’ Motion to Remand.

Said judgment advanced as res judicata is void upon the
face of the record for want of federal jurisdiction to render
the same.

The Trial Court erred in granting Summary Judgment
dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against defendant attorneys,
fees claimed in favor of Fidelity on its Cross-Petition.

A.

For want of jurisdiction of any Cross-Petition or Mo-
tion to Dismiss.

For failure of evidence to show that attorneys fees
allowed Fidelity were just, due and unpaid.

[APPENDIX)

The Trial Court erred in finding plainuffs’ evidence
insufficient under the laws of Oklahcma to state a cause
of action for fraud and deceit.

A.
The Trial Court disregarded law on fraud.

B.

An insurance company may not demand and collect
premiums on a policy of insurance for a period during
which it assumes no risks. The delivery of the policy was
pre-requisite to its effectiveness and therefore the date from
which premiums were earned and due.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0289%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.