Legal Opinion
Mayer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 20, 1997No. 88541PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OP ALA, Justice.
¶ 1 The issue we are asked to decide today is whether an explosion occasioned by a bomb put in a parked vehicle affords a predicate for recovery under uninsured motorist coverage. We answer in the negative.
¶ 2 Stanley F. Mayer (insured) sought recovery for loss under the uninsured motorist (UM) provision of his automobile insurance policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm or insurer). By its summary judgment for the insurer the trial court ruled that while Mayer’s injuries, which resulted from a truck bomb explosion, arose out of, the use of a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Willard v. KelleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. SandersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Byus v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
3Cited by11 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DeHaanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Ply v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Sigmund v. Progressive Northern InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Narvaez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1999
- Graham v. National Union Fire Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2025
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.