Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06243/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06243-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

FILLD UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. 'ted State& Qmrtof AppealP uni Tenth c ·--·' tn;uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RANDI JONES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

JAN 2 9 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6243 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-845-B) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shal l 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law o f 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-6243 Document: 010110165477 Date Filed: 01/29/1993 Page: 1 
Following her involvement in an automobile accident in 

Oklahoma, Randi Jones filed suit against her insurer, American 

Family Mutual Insurance Company, in federal district court, 

i nitially alleging bad faith and seeking both damages and proceeds 

allegedly due under the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage 

provisions cf her policy. Key to the resolution of her claims was 

the parties' dispute as to whether Oklahoma or Kansas law applied. 

Following cross motions for summary judgment, the district court 

entered its order determining Kansas law to be applicable to both 

Jones' tort and contract claims, and dismissing the tort claim for 

bad faith in accordance with Kansas law. The parties then entered 

into a stipulation, containing the relevant facts and the 

undisputed effects of applying each state's law. The district 

court entered judgment in favor of American Family; Jones now 

appeals. 

The undisputed facts underlying this appeal are set forth in 

both the district court's order, Appellant's App . at tab 7, and 

the parties' stipulation, id. at tab 8, and need not be repeated 

here. Our jurisdiction over this diversity case arises from 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1332. The only issue before this court on 

appeal is the district court's choice of law determination with 

respect to Jones' contract claim against American Family for 

uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. We review choice of law 

decisions de novo. See Johnson v. Continental Airlines Corp., 964 

F.2d 1059, 1060 (10th Cir. 1992) . 

Following our careful review of the record on appeal, 

together with the parties' briefs and motions before this court, 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6243 Document: 010110165477 Date Filed: 01/29/1993 Page: 2 
we conclude the district court's determination that Kansas law 

applies in this case is correct. Therefore, for substantially the 

same reasons stated in the district court's Order on Cross Motions 

for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on April 15, 1992, see 

Appellant's App. at tab 7, the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John W. Lungstrum 

District Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6243 Document: 010110165477 Date Filed: 01/29/1993 Page: 3