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.
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.
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.
¶ 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.
{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."
"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.
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.
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.”
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."
"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."