Opinion ID: 1223790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Husband and Wife Were Joint Insureds Under the Terms of the Contract of Insurance

Text: ¶ 4 The contract of insurance in effect for the renewed policy period of May 19, 1991, through May 19, 1992, provided the following definitions: In this policy, you and your refer to the named insured shown in the Declarations and the spouse if a resident of the same household.... .... 3. insured means you and residents of your household who are: a. your relatives; or b. other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above. Despite these definitions, the Court of Civil Appeals reasoned that, because the property was not held in joint tenancy, only Husband was an insured. It held that Wife never became a party to the contract and that she received coverage only in a beneficiary status. ¶ 5 Who is an insured under a policy of insurance is determined by the contract itself. Babcock v. Adkins, 695 P.2d 1340, 1342 (Okla.1985). Every insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any rider, endorsement, or application attached to and made part of the policy. Okla.Stat. tit. 36, § 3621 (1991). ¶ 6 The reasoning of the Court of Civil Appeals cannot be reconciled with the terms of the insurance agreement. Husband and Wife were both insureds under the policy, Husband as the insured named on the declarations page and Wife as a spouse residing in the household. This determination is consistent with the fact that wife had an insurable interest in the property by virtue of being a spouse who resided there.