American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn

79 Citing cases

  1. Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co.

    392 P.3d 262 (Okla. 2017)   Cited 18 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Hollaway v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 2003 OK 90, ¶ 2, 89 P.3d 1022. ¶ 11 For example, in American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn , 2004 OK 9, ¶ 1, 89 P.3d 1051, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified a single question, which asked whether a specific individual was insured under an insurance policy. The question was reformulated into two questions, one addressing the ambiguity of a phrase in the policy, and another addressing the doctrine of reasonable expectations relating to insurance coverage.

  2. Lane v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.

    2021 OK 40 (Okla. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Named insureds and resident relatives are Class 1 insureds; Class 2 insureds--such as the plaintiffs in this case--are individuals insured under a policy by virtue of their occupancy or permissive use of a covered vehicle. Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, ¶ 12, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054--55. The statute includes strong and unequivocal language requiring Oklahoma insurance companies to advise their proposed insureds on the importance of obtaining uninsured-motorist coverage.

  3. Johnson v. Csaa Gen. Ins. Co.

    2020 OK 110 (Okla. 2020)   Cited 10 times

    McIntosh v. Watkins , 2019 OK 6, ¶4, 441 P.3d 1094, 1096, citing Fulsom v. Fulsom , 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2, 81 P.3d 652.May v. Mid-Century Insurance Company , 2006 OK 100, ¶ 22, n. 37, 151 P.3d 132, 140, citing American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn , 2004 OK 9, ¶ 11, 89 P.3d 1051 ; Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Cowen Const., Inc. , 2002 OK 34, ¶ 9, 55 P.3d 1030, 1032 ; Torres v. Sentry Ins. , 1976 OK 195, ¶ 7, 558 P.2d 400 ; Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 1974 OK 147, ¶ 16, 534 P.2d 1293 ; American Iron & Mach. Works Co., Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America , 1962 OK 197, ¶ 5, 375 P.2d 873.A meaning assigned by the trial court to an insurance contract and its terms may be based upon adjudication of an issue of fact in some circumstances.

  4. Hall v. Cherokee Nation

    162 P.3d 979 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    In Hall, the appellate court reached the opposite result, based on policy language which deliberately avoided any reference to Oklahoma workers' compensation law.

    ¶ 11 The issue of whether an insurance policy is ambiguous also presents a question of law. American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, ¶ 11, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054. As previously stated, an issue of law is reviewed de novo. Kluver, 1993 OK 85 at ¶ 14, 859 P.2d at 1084.

  5. Rehders v. Allstate Insurance Co.

    139 N.M. 536 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that "judgment against an insured is appropriate as a matter of law when the insured's expectations do not extend to the facts of the case, or when the insured's expectations conflict with the clear language of the policy itself"

    {23} The trial court did not find the applicable language of the policy ambiguous, and neither do we. In American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, ¶ 0, 89 P.3d 1051, the insured was a closely-held corporation which operated a pharmacy. The UM endorsement identified the pharmacy as the sole "named insured" and listed the "form of business" as a "corporation."

  6. Squirrel v. Bordertown Bingo

    125 P.3d 680 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times
    In Squirrel, the appellate court relied on the facts that the policy defined "workers' compensation" as "the workers'... compensation benefits of the state... named...," and specifically referred to Oklahoma's statutory benefits to find that the policy indicated it was issued to insure the employer under Oklahoma's state worker's compensation law, as well as the tribe's.

    "The test for ambiguity is whether the language `is susceptible to two interpretations on its face . . . from the standpoint of a reasonable prudent lay person, not from that of a lawyer.'" American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, ¶ 11, 89 P.3d 1051,1054, quoting Cranfill v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2002 OK 26, ¶ 8, 49 P.3d 703, 706. ¶ 14 When policy language is ambiguous, the doctrine of reasonable expectations is applied as an interpretive tool to discern the intent of the parties.

  7. Edens v. Neth. Ins. Co.

    834 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 85 times
    Noting that in diversity cases, the substantive law of the forum state governs

    But when a policy's language is ambiguous—or when an exclusion within a policy is masked by technical or obscure language or hidden in the policy's provisions—Oklahoma courts apply the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn , 89 P.3d 1051, 1054 (Okla. 2004). “Under the reasonable expectations doctrine, when construing an ambiguity or uncertainty in an insurance policy, the meaning of the language is not what the drafter intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it to mean.

  8. Atain Speciality Ins. Co. v. Tribal Constr. Co.

    912 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (W.D. Okla. 2012)   Cited 4 times
    In Atain Speciality, Judge DeGiusti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma concluded that "the phrase ‘in connection with’ [in an automobile exclusion] reasonably encompasses situations where more than one cause is involved in a loss, and the only fair and reasonable construction of that phrase in the context of the CGL Policy's Auto Exclusion is to negate operation of the efficient proximate cause doctrine."

    Parties may contract for specific risk coverage and will be bound by policy terms. American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054 (Okla.2004). The Court may not rewrite insurance contracts, and “it is the insurer's responsibility to draft clear provisions of exclusion.”

  9. Atain Speciality Ins. Co. v. Tribal Constr. Co.

    No. CIV-11-1379-D (W.D. Okla. Dec. 13, 2012)

    Parties may contract for specific risk coverage and will be bound by policy terms. American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054 (Okla. 2004). The Court may not rewrite insurance contracts, and "it is the insurer's responsibility to draft clear provisions of exclusion."

  10. Robinson v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

    No. 17-6166 (10th Cir. Aug. 2, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    "But the Oklahoma courts apply the doctrine only if the contract is ambiguous or if a term is 'masked by technical or obscure language or hidden in a policy's provisions.'" Martin, 727 F. App'x at 462-63 (quoting Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, ¶ 9, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054 (internal quotation marks omitted)). "Texas law does not recognize the 'Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations' . . . as a basis to disregard unambiguous policy provisions."