Legal Opinion

American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 10, 2004No. 99,392Published

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

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Salve Regina College v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API