Legal Opinion
Pierce v. Oklahoma Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 11, 1995No. 81774PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUMMERS, Justice:
Our answer to this first impression question will determine whether a liability insurer, by a policy endorsement specifically excluding a certain named driver, may avoid liability for damages occurring when the forbidden driver drives with consent of the insured person. We hold that such a named driver exclusion does not violate Oklahoma’s public policy regarding compulsory liability insurance, and that the insurance contract, by its express language, operates to bar any liability on behalf of the insurer, including that of negligent entrustment by the insured.
The facts are…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Bankert Ex Rel. Habush v. Threshermen's Mutual Ins.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- Equity Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spring Valley Wholesale Nursery, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Great Central Insurance Co. v. RoemmichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
- Williamson v. Eclipse Motor Lines, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
- Fields v. Western Preferred Cas. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1983
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- BP America, Inc. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Ball v. Wilshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- Harkrider v. PoseySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Hartline v. HartlineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. SmithAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.