Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06375/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

UNITED . STATES COURT . OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GILBERTO OROZCO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United Stat.es Court of.Appeals 

Tenth ('frenit 

JUNO 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-6375 

ALAN SMITH, 

Defendant, 

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY 

COMPANY, an insurance 

corporation, 

Garnishee-Appellee. 

) (W.D. Okla. CIV-81-1376-R) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff was injured when a truck he was steering while it 

was being towed by his employer, Alan Smith, rolled over and 

nearly severed his leg. Plaintiff obtained a $146,577.77 judgment 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6375 Document: 010110036113 Date Filed: 06/08/1990 Page: 1 
against Smith for negligence in causing plaintiff's injury. At 

the time of the accident, Smith did not have worker's compensation 

insurance but was insured by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 

Plaintiff filed a garnishment action against Aetna to satisfy the 

judgment. The district court on cross-motions for summary 

judgment, awarded summary judgment in favor of Aetna, finding that 

plaintiff was excluded from coverage by the "employee of the 

insured" exclusionary clause of the policy. The policy at issue 

stated that the insurance did not apply to: 

Bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out 

of and in the course of his or her employment by the 

insured. However, this exclusion does not apply to 

bodily injury to domestic employees not entitled to 

workers' compensation benefits. 

Dist. Ct. Order at 2 (emphasis in original). 

The district court stated that the issue before it was 

"whether Plaintiff is excluded from coverage by Defendant's 

policy." Id. On appeal, plaintiff also argues that the policy 

exclusion violated public policy and Oklahoma's Financial 

Responsibility Acts, Okla. Stat. tit. 7, §§ 7-101 to 7-607, which 

includes Oklahoma's Compulsory Insurance Law, Okla. Stat. tit. 47, 

§§ 7-601 to 7-607. Appellee asserts that plaintiff did not raise 

that issue on appeal. Because we have not found in the record nor 

has plaintiff documented in the record where he raised that issue 

below, we will not address that issue on appeal. See Tenth Cir. 

R. 28.2(d): Anschutz Land Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 820 

F.2d 338, 344 n.5 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 954 

(1987). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6375 Document: 010110036113 Date Filed: 06/08/1990 Page: 2 
As to the issue of whether defendant's policy excluded 

plaintiff from coverage as a non-domestic employee, after a review 

of the record and the briefs filed on appeal, we AFFIRM the 

district court October 23, 1989 order for the reasons stated 

therein. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6375 Document: 010110036113 Date Filed: 06/08/1990 Page: 3