WHICH IT WILL DEAL AND REFUSE TO DEAL WITH THOSE WHO WILL NOT COMPLY. REAZIN V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, 899 F.2D 951 (10TH CIR. 1990).
LASTLY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA HAS IMPOSED THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING TO INCLUDE VIRTUALLY ALL TYPES OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS AND CLAIMS ARISING THEREUNDER. SEE, E.G., ROACH V. ATLAS LIFE INS. CO., 769 P.2D 158 (OKLA. 1989). THE COURT HAS DEFINED BAD FAITH AS A SITUATION WHERE AN "INSURER UNREASONABLY, AND IN BAD FAITH, WITHHOLDS PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM OF ITS INSURED." CHRISTIAN V. AMERICAN HOME ASSUR. CO., 577 P.2D 899, 905 (OKLA. 1977). THE PRACTICE WITH WHICH YOU ARE CONCERNED SIMPLY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN SUCH A DEFINITION.
IV.
CONCLUSION
GIVEN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOUND IN 36 O.S. 1257 AND A SENSIBLE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF, I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND THAT AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S PRACTICE OF DESIGNATING AN EXCLUSIVE VENDOR OR REPAIR SHOP FOR THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED AUTOMOBILE GLASS OF ITS INSUREDS IS PROHIBITED BY THE OKLAHOMA INSURANCE CODE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, IT IS EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATED IN 36 O.S. 1257(H) AND 36 O.S. 1257(D) AND, AS A RESULT, IS OBVIOUSLY NOT PROHIBITED, BUT RATHER, IS PERMITTED ON A REGULATED BASIS. WHETHER A PARTICULAR INSURER VIOLATED SUCH REGULATIONS WOULD BE A QUESTION OF FACT AND COULD NOT BE ANSWERED AS A MATTER OF LAW.
(WILLIAM D. LAFORTUNE)