Opinion ID: 2633107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Party contentions and analysis.

Text: ¶ 11 Tyler contends that the term actual cash value utilized in the policy and the terms fair value and actual value found in § 4804 are synonymous. Shelter argues that the terms fair value and actual value in the statutory enactment control and that the terms mean nothing more than the property's fair market value immediately before the fire loss. Nevertheless, Shelter and Tyler agree that if the insured is correct, the insurer owes an additional $23,500 for a total payment of $52,000. The $52,000 figure represents the amount to replace Tyler's property less depreciation. [9] ¶ 12 In determining whether a statute applies to a given set of facts, we focus on legislative intent [10] which controls statutory interpretation. [11] Intent is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective [12] considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each. [13] The Court presumes that the Legislature expressed its intent and that it intended what is expressed. [14] Only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language, i.e. in cases of ambiguity or conflict, are rules of statutory construction employed. [15] ¶ 13 In determining the certification of a class action in Scoufos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2001 OK 113, 41 P.3d 366, this Court considered the statutory language of 36 O.S.1991 § 4084. [16] In so doing, we held that the provision clearly reflected that the Legislature intended its application to be conditioned upon the insured property being totally destroyed by fire. ¶ 14 Scoufos did not address whether the terms fair value and actual value in § 4804 should be considered synonymous with the term actual cash value utilized in § 4803 and standard Oklahoma fire insurance policies. As to the meaning of these terms, the language of the two statutes is not so clear as to be beyond interpretation. ¶ 15 Rochester American Ins. Co. v. Short, 1953 OK 4, 252 P.2d 490 is instructive. Like here, the property in Rochester was totally destroyed by fire. The trial judge in Rochester instructed the jury that the insured was entitled to recover the actual cash value of the property in the event of a total loss. The trial judge went on to define the term actual cash value as: `The actual cash value of a building is the cost of replacing said building with material of like kind and quality less depreciation. In arriving at the amount of depreciation you shall consider the age of the building, the condition in which it was maintained, and changes in the neighborhood which might affect the value of the building and any other facts and circumstances which affect the value of the property.' ¶ 16 The statutes in effect, under which the jury was instructed to determine the actual cash value of the property destroyed, utilize language virtually identical to that found in §§ 4803 and 4804, supra. The Rochester Court considered the statutory language of 36 O.S.1941 § 241 providing in pertinent part: . . . If buildings insured against loss by fire, and situated within this State, are totally destroyed by fire, the company shall not be liable beyond the actual value of the insured property at the time of the loss or damage . . .  Section § 244.1 provided that the company would insure the property to the extent of the actual cash value of the property at the time of loss, but not exceeding the amount which it would cost to repair or replace the property with material of like kind and quality within a reasonable time after such loss . . . Relying on the language of these statutes, the Court held that actual cash value of a building totally destroyed by fire was a matter of fact to be determined by a consideration of all relevant factors and circumstances existing at the time of the loss. In so doing, it treated the terms actual value found in § 241 and actual cash value utilized in § 244.1 as synonymous. [17] ¶ 17 The position taken by the Rochester Court reflects the historical application in Oklahoma of the term actual cash value in relation to fire indemnity policies. [18] More recently, in Branch v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2002 OK 16, ¶¶ 6-9, 55 P.3d 1023, we confirmed that the term actual cash value as construed by the Rochester Court had a specific, unambiguous meaning; and in Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2002 OK 15, ¶ 6, 55 P.3d 1017, the Court determined that the term actual cash value used in a standard fire insurance policy and that included within 36 O.S. Supp.2003 § 4083 [19] must be construed to have the same meaning. [20] ¶ 18 The insurer's assertion that the terms fair value and actual value contained in 36 O.S.2001 § 4804 should be construed as equivalent to the term fair market value is unconvincing. Oklahoma courts have not considered actual cash value as synonymous with market value or what the property would have brought at sale. [21] Other jurisdictions agree that the term actual cash value in an insurance policy should not be restricted to the market value of the property but should be considered as the actual value of property expressed in terms of money [22] or the real value to replace. [23] The phrase also has been found to be synonymous with sound value [24] and with fair and reasonable cash value. [25]