Title: Pope v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc.
Citation: 1998 OK 77, 69OBJ2625, 962 P.2d 1284
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 1998

Pope v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc. Annotate this Case Pope v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc. 1998 OK 77 962 P.2d 1284 69 OBJ 2625 Case Number: 90009 Decided: 07/14/1998 Mandate Issued: 08/14/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma RUSSELL POPE, SR., and DARNIE POPE, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. Defendant. [962 P.2d 1285] CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF LAW FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ¶0 The residence of the plaintiffs was damaged by fire. Plaintiffs' had homeowners insurance with a limit of $160,000.00. Plaintiffs submitted a claim to the defendant in the amount of $128,498.59, the estimated cost of repair. Defendant denied liability for repair costs until repair or replacement is completed. Plaintiffs filed suit in the federal district court. The Honorable Terry C. Kern, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified two questions to this Court. Pursuant to 1. Whether a replacement requirement in a homeowner's fire insurance policy may be voided as unconscionable? REFORMULATED QUESTION ANSWERED. Gregory G. Meier, Donald O'Dell, MEIER, COLE & O'DELL, P.A.,Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs. Jerry Fraley, W. R. Cathcart, Virginia Cathcart Holleman, CATHCART, GOFTON & FRALEY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant. Larry Derryberry, Robert N. Naifeh, Jr., Gary L. Levine, DERRYBERRY, QUIGLEY, SOLOMON & NAIFEH, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae, American Insurance Association. ALMA WILSON, Justice: ¶1 Pursuant to 1. Whether a replacement requirement in a homeowner's fire insurance policy is unconscionable? ¶2 We conclude that the equitable concept of unconscionability is not applicable to the interpretation of the provisions of a fire insurance policy issued pursuant to ¶3 The certifying order sets forth the following undisputed facts. The residence of the plaintiffs (Popes) was partially destroyed by fire. The Popes had replacement value insurance on the dwelling with a policy limit of $160,000.00 issued by defendant (Farmers) in effect at the time of the fire. The Popes estimate the repair costs at $128,498.59. The damaged dwelling has not been repaired. Farmers rejected the Popes claim for estimated repair costs. Farmers estimated the actual cash value of the loss to be $64,000.00 and issued a check to the Popes in that amount. The Popes accepted the check, specifically retaining the right to submit the disputed amount of the claim to appraisal or litigation. However, if the cost to repair or replace is more than $1,000 or more than 5% of the limit of insurance on the damaged or destroyed building, whichever is less, we will pay no more than the actual cash value until repair or replacement is completed. ¶4 The certification order and the briefs of the parties focus primarily upon Coblentz v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. ¶5 In Bratcher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, REFORMULATED QUESTION ANSWERED. HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, WILSON, and WATT, JJ., concur. KAUGER, C.J., and SUMMERS, V.C.J., concur in result. FOOT