14 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Max True Plastering Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green2 sentences2015"We do not indulge in foreed or constrained interpretations to create and then to construe ambiguities in insurance contracts." Max True Plastering Co., 1996 OK 28 , % 20, 912 P.2d at 869 . 131 If the language in an insurance contract is deemed ambiguous or exelu- sions in the policy are masked by technical or obscure language or hidden in a policy's provisions, this Court applies the reasonable expectations doctrine to determine the intent of the parties and to interpret the terms of the insurance contract. 2015Under the reasonable expectations doctrine, "courts must examine the policy language objectively to determine whether an insured could reasonably have expected coverage." Id. 18, 912 P.2d at 865 . "[UJnclear or ob-secure clauses in an insurance policy will not be permitted to defeat coverage which is objectively reasonably expected by a person in the position of the insured." Spears v. Shelter Mut. | 1 | 6 |
Assicurazioni Generali, S.P.A. v. Kenneth Neil, Assicurazioni Generali, S.P.A. v. Kenneth Neilgreen2 sentences2017Neil , 160 F.3d 997 (4th Cir. 1998) (concluding that an insurance policy exclusion barred coverage for injuries due to a carbon monoxide leak), with Reg'l Bank of Colorado , N.A . v. St. 2017Neil , 160 F.3d 997 (4th Cir. 1998) (concluding that an insurance policy exclusion barred coverage for injuries due to a carbon monoxide leak), with Reg'l Bank of Colorado , N.A . v. St. | 1 | 2 |
Hollaway v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2017Co. of Am. , 2003 OK 90, ¶ 2 , 89 P.3d 1022 . 13 "Whether Blake Bogdahn was a person insured under the uninsured motorist provisions of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. as the named insured?" 14 "Is the definition of an insured in the UM endorsement of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. ambiguous, such that the doctrine of reasonable expectations can be applied to define Blake Bogdahn as an insured?" And, "[i]f so, does the statutorily mandated UM selection/rejection form create a reasonable expectation of coverage for Blake Bogdahn, su 2017Co. of Am. , 2003 OK 90, ¶ 2 , 89 P.3d 1022 . 13 "Whether Blake Bogdahn was a person insured under the uninsured motorist provisions of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. as the named insured?" 14 "Is the definition of an insured in the UM endorsement of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. ambiguous, such that the doctrine of reasonable expectations can be applied to define Blake Bogdahn as an insured?" And, "[i]f so, does the statutorily mandated UM selection/rejection form create a reasonable expectation of coverage for Blake Bogdahn, su | 1 | 2 |
Andersen v. Highland House Co.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., Andersen v. Highland House Co. , 757 N.E.2d 329, 333-34 (Ohio 2001). 2016See, e.g., Andersen v. Highland House Co. , 757 N.E.2d 329, 333-34 (Ohio 2001). | 1 | 1 |
BROOM v. WILSON PAVING & EXCAVATING, INC.green2 sentences2016In Oklahoma, if more than one reasonable construction can be placed upon the contract language, an ambiguity arises: "If the language in an insurance contract is deemed ambiguous, this Court applies the reasonable expectations doctrine to determine the intent of the parties and to interpret the terms of the insurance contract." Broom v. Wilson Paving & Excavating, Inc. , 2015 OK 19, ¶ 40, 356 P.3d 617 (citing Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Gaur. 2016In Oklahoma, if more than one reasonable construction can be placed upon the contract language, an ambiguity arises: "If the language in an insurance contract is deemed ambiguous, this Court applies the reasonable expectations doctrine to determine the intent of the parties and to interpret the terms of the insurance contract." Broom v. Wilson Paving & Excavating, Inc. , 2015 OK 19, ¶ 40, 356 P.3d 617 (citing Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Gaur. | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence2005Co., 493 N.W.2d 808, 811 (Iowa 1992); Chacon v. American Family Mutual Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Homestead Fire Ins. Co. v. De Wittgreen2 sentences1996Co. v. De Witt, 206 Okla. 570 , 245 P.2d 92, 94 (1952) and continuing through 1995 in Withrow v. Pickard, 905 P.2d 800, 804-06 (Okla.1995), in Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. 1996Co. v. De Witt, 206 Okla. 570 , 245 P.2d 92, 94 (1952) and continuing through 1995 in Withrow v. Pickard, 905 P.2d 800, 804-06 (Okla.1995), in Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Withrow v. Pickardgreen1 sentence1996Co. v. De Witt, 206 Okla. 570 , 245 P.2d 92, 94 (1952) and continuing through 1995 in Withrow v. Pickard, 905 P.2d 800, 804-06 (Okla.1995), in Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cranfill v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Co., 2002 OK 26 , 49 P.3d 703 , construing liberally words of inclusion in favor of the insured and construing strictly words of exclusion against the insurer, see McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58 , 28 P.3d 574 . ¶20 Because insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion due to the unequal bargaining positions of the parties, the Court in Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , adopted the reasonable expectations doctrine and held that it may apply as a tool to aid the courts in discerning the intention of the parties when the policy language is a 2005Co., 2002 OK 26 , 49 P.3d 703 , construing liberally words of inclusion in favor of the insured and construing strictly words of exclusion against the insurer, see McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58 , 28 P.3d 574 . ¶20 Because insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion due to the unequal bargaining positions of the parties, the Court in Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , adopted the reasonable expectations doctrine and held that it may apply as a tool to aid the courts in discerning the intention of the parties when the policy language is a | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Cowen Construction Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Corp. v. Cowen Constr., Inc. , 2002 OK 34 55 P.3d 1030 infra ¶¶ 23-24. ¶14 Crown asserts that the Pollution Exclusion is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the claims in the Reid Lawsuit, and asks that we apply the reasonable expectations doctrine to find that there is coverage under the Policies. 2022Corp. v. Cowen Constr., Inc. , 2002 OK 34 55 P.3d 1030 infra ¶¶ 23-24. ¶14 Crown asserts that the Pollution Exclusion is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the claims in the Reid Lawsuit, and asks that we apply the reasonable expectations doctrine to find that there is coverage under the Policies. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Simpson v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Co. , 1999 OK 51 , ¶¶ 9, 14, 981 P.2d 1262 , 1265--66. ¶22 Thurston argues that we should apply the reasonable expectations doctrine. 2020Co. , 1999 OK 51 , ¶¶ 9, 14, 981 P.2d 1262 , 1265--66. ¶22 Thurston argues that we should apply the reasonable expectations doctrine. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Summonte v. First Amer. Title Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 116 . 11 In Max True , the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in response to a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, specifically adopted the "reasonable expectations doctrine" in the interpretation of insurance contracts, stating, "the reasonable expectations doctrine may be applied in the construction of insurance contracts and that the doctrine may apply to ambiguous contract language or to exclusions which are masked by technical or obscure language or which are hidden in a policy's provisions." Max True , 1996 OK 28 , ¶24. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
McDonald v. Schreiner
green
2 sentences2005Co., 2002 OK 26 , 49 P.3d 703 , construing liberally words of inclusion in favor of the insured and construing strictly words of exclusion against the insurer, see McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58 , 28 P.3d 574 . ¶20 Because insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion due to the unequal bargaining positions of the parties, the Court in Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , adopted the reasonable expectations doctrine and held that it may apply as a tool to aid the courts in discerning the intention of the parties when the policy language is a 2005Co., 2002 OK 26 , 49 P.3d 703 , construing liberally words of inclusion in favor of the insured and construing strictly words of exclusion against the insurer, see McDonald v. Schreiner, 2001 OK 58 , 28 P.3d 574 . ¶20 Because insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion due to the unequal bargaining positions of the parties, the Court in Max True Plastering Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , adopted the reasonable expectations doctrine and held that it may apply as a tool to aid the courts in discerning the intention of the parties when the policy language is a | 1 | 2005–2005 |
American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn
green
2 sentences2005Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9 at ¶ 9 , 89 P.3d at 1054 . 2005Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9 at ¶ 9 , 89 P.3d at 1054 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Spears v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2004Co., 2003 OK 66, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 865 . ¶ 10 The doctrine of reasonable expectations may be applied only when (1) the challenged policy language is ambiguous, or (2) an exclusion within the policy is (a) masked by technical or obscure language, or (b) hidden in a policy's provisions. 2004Co., 2003 OK 66, ¶ 6 , 73 P.3d 865 . ¶ 10 The doctrine of reasonable expectations may be applied only when (1) the challenged policy language is ambiguous, or (2) an exclusion within the policy is (a) masked by technical or obscure language, or (b) hidden in a policy's provisions. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Wiley v. Travelers Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2004Id. ¶ 9 In Max True Plastering Co. v. USF & G Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , we adopted the doctrine of reasonable expectations. 2004Id. ¶ 9 In Max True Plastering Co. v. USF & G Co., 1996 OK 28 , 912 P.2d 861 , we adopted the doctrine of reasonable expectations. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.