Opinion ID: 4033075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶3 By its terms, the policy applies only to accidents, occurrences, and losses during the policy period shown in the Declarations which occur within the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada, or while the motorcycle is being shipped between their ports. The policy further contemplates out of state coverage by providing: An insured person may become subject to the financial responsibility law, compulsory insurance law or similar law of another state or in Canada. This can happen because of the ownership, maintenance or use of your insured motorcycle when you travel outside of your home state. We will interpret this policy to provide any broader coverage required by those laws , except to the extent that other liability insurance applies. No person may collect more than once for the same elements of loss. (Emphasis added). Most importantly, the policy addresses specifically the issue of stacking of UM coverage and links it to the state law of the state in which the accident occurred by providing:  Subject to the law of the state of occurrence , we will pay no more than these maximums regardless of the number of vehicles insured, insured persons, claims, claimants, policies, or vehicles involved in the occurrence. (Emphasis added). Thus, the policy limits stacking, but only if the law of the state of occurrence limits stacking. 3 Oklahoma law did not limit stacking. 4 Therefore, under the policy's choice to defer to the law of the state of occurrence regarding stacking, the policy holder was entitled to stack UM coverage. ¶4 The parties and the Court of Civil Appeals became distracted from the policy language by a dispute concerning whether a conflict of law determination should be made according to Oklahoma's conflict of law statute concerning contracts, this Court's case law, or the UM statute found at section 3636 of title 36. There actually is no dispute because the policy provides its own choice of law provision concerning the stacking of UM coverage. Unfortunately, the policy provisions have yet to be given effect by the lower courts. This matter is remanded to the trial court for application of the policy provisions. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED. CONCUR: Reif, C.J., Combs, V.C.J., Kauger, Watt, Edmondson, Colbert, J.J. DISSENT: Winchester, Taylor, Gurich (by separate writing) J.J.