Opinion ID: 616547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Causation in Oklahoma Insurance Law

Text: We apply Oklahoma law because in a “diversity action we apply the substantive law of the forum state.” Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Serv., Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 636 F.3d 1300, 1302 (10th Cir. 2011). Under Oklahoma’s choice-of-law rule, the interpretation of an insurance contract “is governed by the law where the contract is made.” Bohannan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 820 P.2d 787, 793 (Okla. 1991). Because the Policy was made in Oklahoma, we apply Oklahoma insurance law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that “[i]nsurance policies are contracts interpreted as a matter of law.” BP Am., Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 P.3d 832, 835 (Okla. 2005). In the interpretation of an insurance policy, “[w]hen policy provisions are unambiguous and clear, the employed language is accorded its ordinary, plain meaning.” Id. In insurance law, “[t]he rule of causation as applied in the context of insurance coverage is proximate cause.” 7 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 101:39 (3rd ed. 2011). “‘Proximate cause’ has a different meaning and applications in the area of insurance law than it has in tort law.” See id. § 101:40. In insurance law, proximate cause “bears no relationship with the determination of ‘culpability’ or the explanation for why the injury took place.” Id. Proximate cause in insurance law is used 8 to “determin[e] whether the specific type of injury caused by the specific type of physical act or event was intended to be covered under the terms of the subject policy.” Id. Oklahoma courts have addressed causation in insurance coverage suits where the parties disputed which of multiple causes of an event was the proximate cause. To determine which cause was proximate cause, Oklahoma courts follow the “efficient proximate cause” doctrine, which defines the proximate cause as the cause “‘that sets the other causes in operation; incidental causes are not proximate though they may be nearer in time and place to the loss.’” Duensing v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 131 P.3d 127, 133 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005) (quoting Shirey v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 274 P.2d 386, 389 (Okla. 1954)). “[T]he efficient proximate cause doctrine applies absent definition or limitation in the policy.” Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Gerlicher Co., LLC, — P.3d —, 2011 WL 3903246, at  (Okla. Civ. App. June 30, 2011) (quotation omitted).3