Opinion ID: 153965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: East Central's claim is excluded by the amendatory endorsement.

Text: 21 Under Part I(A) of the CGL Policy, the injuries and death of the Creek County Well Service employees constitute bodily injuries. East Central's claim against Creek County Well Service is based on Creek County Well Service's obligation under the Six-Foot Rule to indemnify 3 East Central for over $4,000,000 for East Central's liability to Creek County Well Service's employees and their families as a result of the employees' bodily injuries. See East Central Elec. Coop. v. Robert Gordon Equip., Inc., 772 F.2d 662, 663-64 (10th Cir.1985) (holding that under Okla.Stat. tit. 63, § 984, the power line company can recover from the employer of an employee injured by the power line the percentage of the employer's negligence as determined by a jury). Thus, the amendatory endorsement excluding coverage for indemnification claims against the insured arising out of bodily injuries excludes coverage for East Central's claim against Creek County Well Service. Cf. Pearson Servs., Inc., 937 F.2d at 403-04 (holding that the policy's exclusion of coverage for any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of such [bodily] injury operates where 'the genesis of the action is an employee's work-related bodily injury.'  (quoting National Union Fire Ins. Co., 906 F.2d at 200)). 22 If we were instead to accept East Central's argument that its claim against Creek County Well Service, which arises from injuries fitting the definition of bodily injury under the policy, was covered under the personal injury provision of the policy, it would render the amendatory endorsement to the bodily injury provision which excludes coverage of this claim meaningless. See County of Columbia v. Continental Ins. Co., 189 A.D.2d 391, 595 N.Y.S.2d 988, 991 (N.Y.App.Div.1993) ([T]o extend the personal injury coverage to occurrences which fall squarely within the property damage coverage would have the effect of rendering the pollution exclusion meaningless.), aff'd, 83 N.Y.2d 618, 612 N.Y.S.2d 345, 634 N.E.2d 946 (1994). Such a strained reading of the CGL Policy would contradict the rule of interpretation that under Oklahoma law an insurance policy is to be construed so as to give effect to all of its provisions if possible. See Dodson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 812 P.2d 372, 376 (Okla.1991); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Walker, 329 P.2d 852, 856 (Okla.1958).