Legal Opinion
McSorley v. Hertz Corp.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 8, 1994No. 79695PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, Justice:
The first impression question presented is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a self-insured car rental company which did not offer uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage1 pursuant to its rental agreement. Under the facts presented here, we find that a self-insured car rental company is not required to offer uninsured motorist coverage to a car renter and that uninsured motorist coverage did not arise by operation of law. Summary judgment was proper.
FACTS
Cathleen McSorley (McSorley/ear renter), a Maryland resident, rented a car from the Hertz…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- United States v. RutherfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Fuller v. OdomSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Silver v. SlusherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Keating v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- City of Bethany v. Public Employees Relations BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Cox v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.