Opinion ID: 1192591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Insurer's Dismissal Quest

Text: The parents' UM carrier pressed for dismissal on the grounds that (1) the parents are not authorized by 12 O.S.1991 §§ 1053(B) [6] and 1054 [7] to bring a wrongful-death action as parties plaintiff; (2) in an earlier wrongful-death action the widow, individually and as the personal representative of decedent's estate, had secured a complete adjudication of all issues now sought to be tendered; (3) State Farm's rights qua insurer would be prejudiced if this action were allowed to proceed, because the earlier wrongful-death judgment against the tortfeasor operates as a bar to the UM carrier's subrogation claim against the offending actor; (4) the trial court's finding (in the prior wrongful-death action) that the parents are not entitled to any recovery (for lack of legal interest) raises a bar of estoppel by judgment; [8] and (5) since the parents themselves could not bring another death action, they cannot by this lawsuit indirectly secure a recovery that stands barred to them directly. To its dismissal motion the insurer attached some but not all of the pleadings and rulings in the widow's wrongful-death action. [9] The parents argued that the law allows them to press this claim in a breach-of-contract action. At the time of their loss, they asserted, a UM clause of their policies provided coverage for any losses which they were legally entitled to recover from the operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle. According to the parents, the earlier death action's termination has no effect on their direct ex contractu demands. The trial court ruled for the insurer and dismissed the case.