Title: PLY v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Citation: 2003 OK 97, 81 P.3d 643
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2003

PLY v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Annotate this Case PLY v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 2003 OK 97 81 P.3d 643 Case Number: 91108 Decided: 11/12/2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DALE PLY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants. FEDERAL CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ¶0 Pursuant to 1. Whether an employer's or supervisor's instructions or directions to its employee regarding work to be performed by that employee, which involves the use of a company-owned vehicle, can constitute "use" of the vehicle by the employer or supervisor so as to give rise to potential liability under Oklahoma's uninsured motorist laws; which we reformulate to read as follows: Where a supervisor, acting on behalf of the employer, provides faulty or negligent instructions or directions to an employee relating to the use of an employer-owned motor vehicle and the employee is injured while following the instructions, can the employer be considered at fault within the meaning of the phrase "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator" in § 3636 of title 36 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and 2. Whether allegations of an employer's non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits. CERTIFIED AND REFORMULATED CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED. G. Steven Stidham, Brian S. Gaskill, Brian T. Inbody, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for plaintiff. Jo Anne Deaton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BOUDREAU, Justice: ¶1 Plaintiff, Dale Ply, suffered severe electric burns in a tragic accident that occurred while he worked on overhead electric wires from the raised bucket of a bucket truck. Plaintiff's employer, Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., owned the bucket truck and insured it through National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with an uninsured motorist (UM) endorsement. Plaintiff recovered workers' compensation benefits for his accidental injuries and now seeks to recover UM benefits. ¶2 Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against the UM insurer, alleging that the accident arose out of Elliot Company's negligent use and negligent maintenance of the bucket truck. ¶3 At the summary judgment hearing, the court determined that there is no Oklahoma law controlling the questions presented. Accordingly, the federal district court, pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 1. Whether an employer's or supervisor's instructions or directions to its employee regarding work to be performed by that employee, which involves the use of a company-owned vehicle, can constitute "use" of the vehicle by the employer or supervisor so as to give rise to potential liability under Oklahoma's uninsured motorist laws; and 2. Whether allegations of an employer's non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits. ¶4 We reformulate the first question within the confines of the certified statement of facts. I. Statement of Facts ¶5 The federal court certified the following statement of facts: 1. Plaintiff, Dale Ply ("Ply"), received severe electrical burns, resulting in amputation of both his arms, in an accident which occurred on May 17, 1996, while he was working in the raised bucket of a bucket truck owned by his employer, Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. ("Elliot Company"). 2. The accident occurred when Ply was "tying in" electrical wires on a job near Broken Bow, Oklahoma, and came into contact with an energized line. 3. The bucket truck in which Ply was working at the time of the accident was owned by Elliot Company and insured by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"), which carried the uninsured motorist coverage for Elliot Company's vehicles. 4. Ply was working alone in the bucket truck when his accident occurred with the knowledge of and pursuant to directions and instructions he received earlier that day from his supervisor. 5. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit that Elliot Company's Safety Handbook required that aerial bucket equipment should only be operated when at least two persons completely familiar with the hydraulic controls were present. 6. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit filed against National Union seeking uninsured motorist benefits that the accident resulted from the "use" of the bucket truck by Elliot Company or by Ply's supervisor, also an employee of Elliot Company. 7. The only vehicle which was present at the scene at the time of Ply's accident was the bucket truck owned by Elliot Company. No other vehicles were involved in the accident. 8. An investigation conducted by Elliot Company revealed that Ply's accident occurred when a canvas and leather tool bag, which was attached and hanging from the outside of the bucket, came into contact with an energized wire located below Ply. 9. The investigation further concluded that "whether the presence of a second crew member would have prevented the accident cannot be determined with any certainty." 10. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit filed against National Union seeking uninsured motorist benefits that there was a hydraulic fluid leak in the bucket truck's hydraulic boom which would occasionally cause the bucket to sag. Ply claims that the hydraulic boom on the bucket sagged right before his injury, causing him to come into contact with the energized line. 11. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit that Elliot Company did not properly maintain the hydraulic boom on the subject bucket truck. 12. Ply has alleged in his lawsuit that Elliot Company, through its supervisor, was negligent in instructing him to work alone in the bucket truck. ¶6 Ply claims he is entitled to recover uninsured motorist insurance benefits from Elliot Company's policy on the basis that: 1) Elliot Company, as his employer, was at fault in the use of its bucket truck when its supervisor assigned him to work alone from the bucket truck and this negligent use of the bucket truck caused his injuries; and 2) Elliot Company, as owner of the bucket truck, was negligent in the maintenance of the bucket truck and its negligent maintenance caused his injuries. National Union answers that: 1) an absent employer cannot be viewed as an uninsured motorist; and 2) any negligence in the maintenance of the bucket truck did not cause Ply's injuries. II. The uninsured motorist statute, ¶7 Our analysis must begin with the UM statute, 36 O.S.2001, § 3636.4 The statute mandates UM coverage to protect insured persons from monetary loss due to personal injury resulting from an accident caused by another who carries no liability insurance or who is underinsured. Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co., 1983 OK 41,¶6, 662 P.2d 681 , 684. ¶8 Our decisional law teaches that § 3636 mandates UM coverage where: 1) the injured person is an insured under the UM provisions of a policy;5 2) the injury to the insured has been caused by an accident;6 3) the injury to the insured has arisen out of the "ownership, maintenance or use" of a motor vehicle;7 and 4) the injured insured is "legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle."8 These four elements of an UM claim are determined from the facts and circumstances of each claim. III. The First Certified Question ¶9 The first question certified by the federal court reads: Whether an employer's or supervisor's instructions or directions to its employee regarding work to be performed by that employee, which involves the use of a company-owned vehicle, can constitute "use" of the vehicle by the employer or supervisor so as to give rise to potential liability under Oklahoma's uninsured motorist laws? ¶10 This question does not concern the first three elements of the mandated UM coverage set out above. It rests on the presumptions that Ply is an insured under the UM provisions in National Union's policy issued to Elliot Company; that Ply's injuries were accidental; and that Ply's injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.9 Where a supervisor, acting on behalf of the employer, provides faulty or negligent instructions or directions to an employee relating to the use of an employer-owned motor vehicle and the employee is injured while following the instructions, can the employer be considered at fault within the meaning of the phrase "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator" in § 3636 of title 36 of the Oklahoma Statutes. ¶12 In answering this novel question, we look first to Oklahoma UM law. Under our UM statute, a liability policy must provide UM coverage to an insured who is "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured vehicle." Under our UM jurisprudence, the phrase "legally entitled to recover" normally refers to issues of fault. Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co., ¶13 The issue of fault is determined by the application of legal principles to the facts presented. If an insured can establish that his or her injury was caused by negligence on the part of the owner or operator of an uninsured vehicle, he or she can recover UM benefits. Negligence comprehends a failure to exercise due care required by the circumstances of the case, that is, a failure to do what an ordinary prudent person would have done under the circumstances or the doing of what such a person would not have done under the circumstances. Kelly v. Cann ¶14 National Union urges that Ply's accident does not come within the scope of the mandated UM coverage because there was no negligent uninsured motorist. It points out that the only motorist involved in the accident was Ply and that no other person was occupying or using the vehicle. It argues that to be at fault under § 3636, an employer must be a motorist, i.e., it must exercise active control or supervision of the vehicle in its transportation nature. ¶16 Section 3636 identifies two separate groups of persons from whom an injured insured may be legally entitled to recover 1) owners of uninsured vehicles or 2) operators of uninsured vehicles. The argument advanced by National Union would require an injured insured to demonstrate that he or she is legally entitled to recover from an "operator" of an uninsured vehicle. To accept National Union's argument, we would have to ignore the plain language of the statute that requires UM coverage for injury if the insured is legally entitled to recover from an "owner" of an uninsured vehicle. According to the statute, an insured who has suffered an injury caused by an accident arising out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle may recover UM benefits if the insured can demonstrate that he or she is "legally entitled to recover damages" from either the owner or the operator of the uninsured motor vehicle. ¶17 In sum, an employer may be at fault within the meaning of the phrase "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator" in § 3636 where a supervisor, acting on behalf of the employer, provides faulty or negligent instructions or directions to an employee relating to the use of an employer-owned motor vehicle and the employee is injured while following the instructions. Allegations of such fault would present questions of fact that must be decided upon the evidence. We, of course, offer no opinion on the merits of Ply's allegations. IV. The Second Certified Question ¶18 The second question certified by the federal court reads: Whether allegations of an employer's non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits. ¶19 This question relates to the statutory requirement that the injury to the insured must arise out of the "maintenance" of a motor vehicle. It requires us to interpret the statutory language "arising out of . . . maintenance". More precisely, we must determine whether the injury must occur during maintenance in order to be within the maintenance provision in § 3636. ¶20 Statutory words are to be understood in their ordinary sense, unless a contrary intention plainly appears. 25 O.S.2001, § 1; see also, W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson Inv. Co., ¶21 In construing the phrase "arising out of use" in § 3636, we have determined that it consists of ordinary words with comprehensive significance which encompass a broad spectrum of factual sequences that might result in injury covered by the liability insurance. Safeco Insurance Co. v. Sanders, ¶22 National Union urges a restrictive reading of "arising out of maintenance." It argues that the maintenance provision in § 3636 means that the injury must occur during the act of maintenance of an uninsured motor vehicle. National Union does not, however, cite any authority directly on point. ¶23 Although not addressing the precise issue presented by this certified question, the Supreme Court of Oregon has indicated that it would assign a broad meaning to "maintenance" for purposes of UM coverage. In Oakridge Community Ambulance Service v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 278 Or. 21, 563 P.2d 164 (1977), the Oregon court observed that if the failure to maintain an ambulance caused delay in transporting a patient and the patient died because of the delay, the death would be viewed as "arising out of the maintenance" of the ambulance for motor vehicle liability purposes. Likewise, an appellate court in Illinois recognized that the plain meaning of "arising out of maintenance" is that liability will accrue where faulty or negligent maintenance of a vehicle results in an incident causing damages to another. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. North River Insurance Co., 46 Ill.App.3d 654, 658, 361 N.E.2d 60, 63, 5 Ill.Dec. 60, 63 (1977). ¶24 This Court has previously concluded that the language in §3636 should be interpreted to accomplish the legislative purpose of providing coverage for injuries that would otherwise go uncompensated. Simmons v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, ¶25 In sum, allegations of an employer's non-contemporaneous negligent maintenance of an employer-owned vehicle, if proven, are sufficient to establish an employee's potential entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits. The allegations would present a question to be decided from the facts and circumstances of the case. We, of course, offer no opinion on the merits of Ply's allegations. CERTIFIED AND REFORMULATED CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED. WATT, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SUMMERS, and BOUDREAU, JJ. concur. KAUGER, J., by separate writing, concurs specially. OPALA, V.C.J., and HARGRAVE, J. and WINCHESTER, J., by separate writing, dissent. FOOT