Title: BALL v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Citation: 184 P.3d 463, 2007 OK 80
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 2007

BALL v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Annotate this Case BALL v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 2007 OK 80 184 P.3d 463 Case Number: 104939 Decided: 10/23/2007 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AMANDA L. BALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a North Carolina Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF LAW FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. ¶0 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) certified five questions of Oklahoma law under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DECLINED. Rick W. Bisher, Ryan Bisher Ryan, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Scott M. Rhodes, James W. Dobbs, SMITH RHODES STEWART & ELDER, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. WATT, J.: ¶1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified five questions RELEVANT FACTS ¶2 On August 22, 2006, the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma issued an order in which the trial judge recognized that the plaintiff-appellant, Amanda L. Ball (Ball), filed a lawsuit alleging that she was an insured under a policy issued by the defendant-appellee, Wilshire Insurance Company (Wilshire/insurer). Ball alleged that Wilshire breached the insurance contract and acted in bad faith by refusing to defend and by failing to timely pay uninsured motorist coverage. The order also notes that on August 21, 2006, Ball and Wilshire filed a stipulation of dismissal, effectively closing the bad faith suit. ". . . The parties in this matter give notice . . . that Amanda Ball hereby dismisses without prejudice her remaining cause of action, breach of the UM contract, not previously disposed of by the Court by Summary Judgment. . . ." [Emphasis added.] ¶3 Ball filed a notice of appeal on September 15, 2006, asserting that the trial court's order of August 21st, resolving the final issues in the cause, made an earlier order, entered on April 4, 2006, final and appealable. Ball admits that the April 4th order dismissed all of her claims with the exception of her breach of contract claim regarding uninsured motorist coverage. ¶4 The Tenth Circuit's certification order was filed with this Court on August 20, 2007. On September 18, 2007, we issued an order indicating that an examination of the record revealed that the certifying court had reserved a jurisdictional issue for consideration on the merits. The parties were directed to file briefs showing cause why: 1) answers to the certified questions would not be advisory should the Tenth Circuit elect not to address the pending appeal on jurisdictional grounds; and 2) this Court should not exercise its discretion to refuse to answer Answering the questions certified is inappropriate where a decision by the certifying court to deny jurisdiction would render this Court's opinion advisory. ¶5 The insurer acknowledges that, if the Tenth Circuit denies jurisdiction, any opinion issued here would be advisory. ¶6 Pursuant to ¶7 We have elected not to answer questions certified in the past. ¶8 Here, the certification puts us in the position of answering questions which may not be determinative of any issue in the cause. Just as we are under a duty to inquire into our own jurisdiction, CONCLUSION ¶9 The phrase indicating that a court "may" answer questions determinative of the cause has been included in statutes similar to Oklahoma's to ensure that answers to certified questions do not result in merely advisory opinions. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DECLINED. WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WATT, TAYLOR, COLBERT, JJ. concur. OPALA, J. dissents. FOOT