Ply v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma answered certified questions concerning uninsured motorist coverage under 36 O.S. § 3636. It held that an employer may be at fault where a supervisor gives negligent instructions concerning use of an employer-owned vehicle, and that noncontemporaneous negligent maintenance may support potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits if causation is proven. The court certified and reformulated the questions, with separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

Holdings

1. An employer may be at fault within the meaning of the phrase "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator" in 36 O.S. § 3636 when a supervisor acting on the employer's behalf provides faulty or negligent instructions or directions concerning use of an employer-owned motor vehicle and the employee is injured while following those instructions.
2. Allegations that an employer negligently maintained an employer-owned vehicle at a time before the accident, if proven and causally connected to the injury, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured-motorist benefits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an employer may be considered at fault for purposes of Oklahoma's uninsured-motorist statute when its supervisor, acting on the employer's behalf, gives faulty or negligent instructions concerning an employee's use of an employer-owned motor vehicle and the employee is injured while following those instructions.
2. Whether alleged non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven to have caused the injury, can establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured-motorist benefits.

Disposition

other