Legal Opinion

O'NEILL v. Long

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 2, 2002No. 96,002PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOUDREAU, Justice.

{1 The trial court decided this garnishment proceeding in favor of the garnishor and against the garnishee, the insurer under a motor vehicle liability policy providing omnibus coverage to any person using the insured vehicle within the seope of consent granted by the named insured. The primary question on appeal is whether Oklahoma's Compulsory Insurance Law requires omnibus coverage even though the permittee exceeds the scope of consent granted by the named insured. We answer that once express or implied permission to use an insured vehicle is granted the omnibus coverage…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kluver v. Weatherford Hospital AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  2. Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  3. Hough v. LeonardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. Brown v. NicholsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  5. First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity & Deposit Insurance Co. of MarylandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Ball v. Wilshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
  2. Progressive Northern Insurance v. Concord General Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  3. Tapp v. PercifulSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
  4. Mulford v. NealSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
  5. Sisk v. GainesCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006

11 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