Court Opinion

ID: 9561038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:01:42.567252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:29.944669
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s interpretation of the provisions of the insurance contract in this case.
The first thing to remember in this case is that the deceased was not engaged in a hazardous employment under our law when he lost his life. In the absence of an insurance policy under which there was paid a premium by the employer covering the deceased in Oklahoma, there can be no recovery. The facts in the case at bar are not analogous to cases relied upon by the majority, National Bank of Tulsa Building v. Goldsmith, 204 Okl. 45, 226 P.2d 916 and Barney U. Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Savage, 208 Okl. 668, 258 P.2d 183, for in those cases the employee was specifically covered because the premium was charged by the insurance company upon each individual employed and 85 O.S.1951 §§ 65.2 and 65.3 applied. In this case I do not find that such proof was made. In the “All States Endorsement” on which the claimants rely to recover, the insurance company was careful to limit its liability to the employer in certain states to cases where there was liability under the Workmen’s Compensation or occupational disease law of such state.
The insurance company’s liability must be found in the contract made with the employer. To my way of thinking it has exempted itself from liability by the very provision under which the majority makes it liable because it only agreed to reimburse the employer for what he would be required to pay under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws. I set out subsection One of “All States Endorsement”:
“To reimburse the insured for all compensation and other benefits required of the insured under the workmen’s compensation or occupational disease law of such state.”
Nothing was collected for any coverage in Oklahoma as I construe the record.
Further, Clause “D” of said “All States Endorsement” provides as follows:
“The insurance afforded by the policy by virtue of this endorsement shall not constitute workmen’s compensation insurance as required of an employer under the laws of any state.”
The insurance company only agreed to pay in case the employer had to pay and the foregoing clause specifically says that it is, not workmen’s compensation insurance. What more can an insurer say to protect itself.
It is my view that the majority opinion makes a different contract from that intended and written by the parties.
The contract of employment between the deceased employee and the employer contains the following provision:
“19. This contract shall not be effective unless signed and approved at the home office of Company at St. Louis, Missouri, and shall be deemed and' considered a Missouri contract and interpreted as such. The Missouri Workmen’s Compensation Law shall be exclusively applicable to all injuries. *108arising out of and in the course of employment, whether occurring in Missouri or in another state.”
I will not attempt a discussion of the effect of this provision. Certainly, however, the petitioner to maintain this action must rely on the Laws of Oklahoma. This is not provided for either by statute or contract.
Whatever claim might have been established in Missouri, I would not hazard a guess but in Oklahoma no claim arising on the accident here can be justified under the plain provisions of the insurance policy.
I dissent.