Opinion ID: 2612914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the teachings of bohannan

Text: Thomas argues that both the liability and UM exclusions are void under the teachings of Bohannan. There, the court held that the choice-of-law rule to be applied in motor vehicle insurance cases implicating conflicting state laws, the validity, interpretation, application and effect of the policy should be determined in accordance with the laws of the state in which the contract was made unless those provisions are contrary to the Oklahoma law's declared policy. National asserts that California law governs its policy because the contract was issued in California between a California resident and a California insurer. The owner's policy explicitly excludes from the liability coverage injuries to an insured. It defines insured as the named insured and any resident of the same household. The UM coverage provision limits recovery to damages for bodily injury caused by an owner or operator of an uninsured highway vehicle. The policy definition of that phrase explicitly excludes from its ambit an insured automobile.  [6] According to National, these exclusionary provisions are consistent with the California Insurance Code, which explicitly states that the term uninsured motor vehicle shall not include a motor vehicle owned or operated by the named insured or any resident of the household. [7] Although his briefs focus essentially on the UM exclusion, Thomas also states on certiorari that the policy provisions which exclude him from both the liability and UM coverage are void as a matter of statutory and decisional law. We are directed to Oklahoma jurisprudence which, Thomas urges, condemns as void those policy provisions which exclude from UM coverage a named insured, a resident of the insured's household as well as an insured motor vehicle. [8] The question for us to settle today is whether insurance policy exclusions which leave an injured passenger without any insurance are contrary to the legislative policy embodied in our compulsory insurance law. [9]