 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cranfill v. Aetna Life Insurance Company4/9/2002
We briefly recite the undisputed facts to place the certified questions in context. Cortez L. Cranfill was killed in a one-vehicle wreck while he was driving alone in Colorado. *fn2 He was driving a pickup truck and hauling a utility trailer from his home in Oklahoma to a cabin in Colorado. The traffic accident report states that about 9:00 p.m. the pickup ran off the right side of the road, overcorrected, ran off the left side of the road, hit a signpost, went airborne and ultimately collided with the ground. Mr. Cranfill was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected out the back window. Several bottles of liquor were found in the pickup. Some were empty and some had not yet been opened. At the time of his death Mr. Cranfill's blood alcohol level was 254 mg/dL, more than two and one-half times the legal limit of 100 mg/dL for operating a motor vehicle in Colorado. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Cranfill's consumption of alcohol while driving the pickup resulted in his death.
Mr. Cranfill's surviving spouse, Sandra W. Cranfill, seeks insurance benefits for the death of her husband pursuant to an accidental death policy issued by the Oklahoma Conference of the United Methodist Church and underwritten by defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna). *fn3 The policy provides coverage for loss of life as a result of bodily injury suffered in an "accident." The policy excludes coverage for losses caused or contributed to by "intentionally self-inflicted injury." The policy does not define either "accident" or "intentionally self-inflicted injury." The policy does not contain an exclusion for a loss which occurs "while intoxicated" or "as a result of intoxication" or any similar exclusion relating to the use of alcohol.
After Aetna denied Mrs. Cranfill's claim on the grounds that Mr. Cranfill's death was not the result of an "accident" and/or was "intentionally self-inflicted," Mrs. Cranfill sued Aetna for breach of contract. The federal district court certified two questions to us concerning Oklahoma insurance law.
Oklahoma law governing insurance coverage disputes is well-established. The foremost principle is that an insurance policy is a contract. Parties are at liberty to contract for insurance to cover such risks as they see fit and they are bound by terms of the contract. Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1974 OK 147, 534 P.2d 1293, 1295. It necessarily follows that courts are not at liberty to rewrite the terms of an insurance contract. Id. When addressing a dispute concerning the language of an insurance policy our first step is to determine as a matter of law whether the policy language at issue is ambiguous. Wynn v. Avemco Ins. Co., 1998 OK 75, , 963 P.2d 572, 575. If it is not ambiguous, we accept the language in its plain, ordinary and popular sense. McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58, , 28 P.3d 574, 577. If the language is ambiguous, we apply well-settled rules of construction to determine the meaning of the ambiguous language: we construe the policy to give a reasonable effect to all of its provisions, Wynn v. Avemco Ins. Co., 1998 OK 75, 16, 963 P.2d 572, 575, and we liberally construe words of inclusion in favor of the insured and strictly construe words of exclusion against the insurer. McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58, n.11, 28 P.3d 574, 577 n.11.
I. ACCIDENT AND/OR INTENTIONALLY SELF-INFLICTED INJURY
The policy provides coverage for loss of life as a result of bodily injury suffered in an accident but excludes coverage for intentionally self-inflicted injuries.
Mrs. Cranfill argues the word accident is ambiguous and must be construed against Aetna. Aetna argues the word accident is not ambiguous. Whether policy language is ambiguo
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|