Legal Opinion
Littlefield v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 20, 1993No. 76449PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, Justice.
The first impression question presented is whether an uninsured motorist insurance policy which limits payment based on the number of persons “bodily injured” is ambiguous. The precise issue is whether a claim for “bodily injury” based on the loss of consortium by a spouse, who is not involved in an accident, is payable under the “per person” or “per accident” policy limit. If the “per accident” provision is applicable, the spouse may recover $20,000 under the terms of each of the policies. If it is not, the “per person” compensation is $10,000 under each policy. We find that…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Dodson v. St. Paul Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
- Bilodeau v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Geico v. Valentine FetisoffCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Izzo v. Colonial Penn InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Cano v. Travelers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1983
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Max True Plastering Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Pitco Production Co. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Haberman v. Hartford Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- May v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Cranfill v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.