American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Concurrence
OPALA, V.C.J.,
concurring in result.
¶ 1 In conformity to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (certifying court) submitted the following question:
Whether Blake Bogdahn was a person insured under the uninsured motorist [UM] provisions of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy as the named insured?
The court today reformulates the question by dividing it into two parts:2
Is the definition of an insured in the UM endorsement of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. ambiguous,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Salve Regina College v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Patricia J. McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc., Patricia J. McInnis v. A.M.F., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.