Case Title: GATES v. ELLER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 94123

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
GATES v. ELLER  GATES v. ELLER 2001 OK 38 22 P.3d 1215 72 OBJ 1197 Case Number: 94123 Decided: 04/24/2001 Mandate Issued: 05/17/2001 EDITH VICTORIA GATES and SHERRY I. GATES, Appellants EDITH VICTORIA GATES, as mother and next friend of KASEY GATES, a minor, Plaintiff v. CHRISTA DIAN ELLER, Defendant PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III ¶0 Plaintiffs instituted this action against the alleged tortfeasor and the uninsured motorist insurer of the owner of the automobile plaintiffs occupied. The trial court severed the claims of the minor plaintiff, which are not involved in this appeal. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs/appellants' claims against the tortfeasor as untimely filed. The insurer moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs' damages resulting from the automobile accident did not exceed the limits of tortfeasor's liability insurance. The plaintiffs responded to the summary judgment motion contending that the tortfeasor's liability insurance is now unavailable. The trial court, the Honorable Niles Jackson, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment. We granted certiorari. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Robert C. Smith, Jr., Michael S. Peters, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellants. Gerald E. Durbin, II, Frances J. Stanton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellee. BOUDREAU, Justice: [22 P.3d 1216] ¶1 This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the uninsured motorist insurer. The dispositive question is: Did the motor vehicle operated by the tortfeasor, for which there was an effective automobile liability insurance policy in an amount greater than the damages claimed, become an uninsured motor vehicle under 36 O.S.Supp.1994, §3636 when the plaintiffs did not timely commence an action against the tortfeasor? We answer in the negative and, accordingly affirm the trial court's summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND ¶2 On November 19, 1994, the automobile driven by Christa Dian Eller (Eller) collided with the automobile driven by Edith Victoria Gates. At the time of the collision, Pauline J. Gates, Sherry I. Gates, and Kasey Gates, a minor, were passengers in the Gates automobile. Eller had liability insurance in the amount of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per accident. Pauline J. Gates owned the automobile driven by Edith which was covered by a liability insurance policy, with uninsured motorist coverage, issued by Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Prudential). ¶3 On January 27, 1995, the driver and passengers of the Gates automobile filed an action against Eller, the alleged tortfeasor, and Prudential, the uninsured motorist insurer. Pauline J. Gates subsequently dismissed her claims against Eller and Prudential, with prejudice. On November 29, 1995, the remaining three plaintiffs also dismissed their claims against both defendants, without prejudice. The remaining three plaintiffs later filed a second action against Eller and Prudential on December 3, 1996. ¶4 Eller responded to the second action with a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the claims of Edith and Sherry Gates against Eller as untimely filed, ¶6 In opposing summary judgment, plaintiffs did not contest Prudential's representation of the facts. ¶7 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Prudential. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, finding the undisputed facts establish that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage because the tortfeasor's liability coverage is no longer available as the statute of limitation has expired. This Court granted Prudential's petition for certiorari review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 A summary judgment disposes solely of issues of law and therefore, it is reviewable by a de novo standard. III. CONTENTIONS ¶9 On certiorari, Prudential contends it has no liability to plaintiffs, as a matter of law, because the undisputed facts reveal that the vehicle operated by the tortfeasor was not an uninsured motor vehicle. In response, plaintiffs contend that the tortfeasor's motor vehicle became uninsured when they (plaintiffs) failed to timely file a tort action against the tortfeasor. According to plaintiffs, the proceeds under the tortfeasor's liability insurance were no longer available to them at that point and therefore they have a right to recover uninsured motorist benefits from Prudential. ¶10 In pressing their argument, plaintiffs rely on Burch v. Allstate Insurance Co.6 In Burch, we answered a federal certified question as to whether an uninsured motorist insurer is liable for the entire amount of an injured insured's claim where the insured failed to timely sue the uninsured tortfeasor.7 Burch held that an uninsured motorist insurer is directly and primarily liable for the entire loss of its injured insured from the first dollar up to the policy limits except where the insured affirmatively destroys the insurer's subrogation right.8 Plaintiffs contend that insomuch as they did not affirmatively destroy Prudential's subrogation right, Prudential became obligated to them for [22 P.3d 1218] their entire loss when the tortfeasor's liability insurance became unavailable. IV. AN INSURED SEEKING TO RECOVER UNINSURED MOTORIST INSURANCE BENEFITS MUST ESTABLISH THE UNINSURED STATUS OF THE TORTFEASOR'S MOTOR VEHICLE. ¶11 The purpose of our uninsured motorist statute9 is to assure insurance coverage for the protection of the insured from the effects of personal injury caused by a motorist who either carries no insurance or has inadequate coverage.10 Accordingly, the statute provides that bodily injury damages covered by uninsured motorist insurance must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.11 While the statute does not precisely define the term uninsured motor vehicle, the term obviously includes a motor vehicle without liability insurance. It also encompasses a motor vehicle with liability insurance: 1) where the liability insurer is unable to make payment because of insolvency; and 2) where the liability limits are less than the amount of the claim (underinsured).12 Under our statutory scheme, the uninsured motorist insurer's obligation to its insured is identical regardless of the underlying reason for the classification of the vehicle as uninsured.13 V. THE FAILURE OF THE INSURED TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION DOES NOT CREATE AN UNINSURED STATUS. ¶13 Plaintiffs rely upon Burch and Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Company16 for their argument that the tortfeasor's insured motor vehicle becomes uninsured if the insured fails to commence an action against the tortfeasor within the statute of limitation. Plaintiffs contend that because the tortfeasor's liability insurance is now unavailable, they have a right to recover uninsured motorist benefits from Prudential. ¶14 In Uptegraft, we answered a federal certified question as to whether the uninsured motorist insurer is discharged from liability under its policy where the injured insured fails to timely sue the uninsured motorist tortfeasor.17 The insurer in Uptegraft argued that the failure of the insured to timely commence a tort action destroyed its subrogation right and accordingly should discharge it from liability to the insured. Uptegraft rejected that argument18 and held that failure of the injured insured to timely commence an action against the uninsured tortfeasor does not ipso facto discharge the uninsured motorist insurer from liability.19 Burch reaffirmed this holding in Uptegraft.20 VI. CONCLUSION ¶16 An insured seeking to recover uninsured motorist insurance benefits must [22 P.3d 1220] establish the uninsured status of the tortfeasor's motor vehicle. An insured does not establish an uninsured status by simply failing to commence an action against the tortfeasor within the statute of limitation. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Prudential. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. ¶17 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT