Court Opinion

ID: 9549805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:56.84954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:55.908329
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
concurring:
I must object to the federal court’s certified question, which impermissibly links uninsured motorist coverage to vehicular coverage alone:
“Is stacking of uninsured motorist coverage required under Oklahoma law, when more than one vehicle is insured by the insurance policy in question, but only a premium for one vehicle is collected on the policy for uninsured motorist coverage?” [Emphasis mine.]
In spite of the federal court’s mischarac-terization of the issue, however, I do concur in the court’s pronouncement today because in the field of uninsured motorist coverage, there are two basic tenets which govern the propriety of so-called policy “stacking”:
(1) Any attempt to tie uninsured motorist coverage to vehicles alone and not to people must fail. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Wendt, 708 P.2d 582 [581] (Okla.1985); Cothren v. Emcasco Insurance Company, 555 P.2d 1037 (Okla.1975). A priori, UM insurance relates to personal bodily injury protection.
(2) Where separate premiums are collected by an insurance company for the provision of uninsured motorist coverage, the insured is entitled to recover upon each separate coverage purchased. Keel v. MFA Ins. Co., 553 P.2d 153 (Okla.1976); Richardson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 594 (Okla.1980). In withholding from an insured that for which a premium has been collected, the insurer reaps an unjust enrichment.
In the present case, a single UM premium was collected for the protection of the insured person (not only the vehicle), thus, there are no separate UM contracts to “stack”. Moreover, it appears that the UM agreement properly encompassed the insured person, rather being tied to vehicular *459coverage alone. This being the case, I concur.