Court Opinion

ID: 9626773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:23:44.383927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:33.544667
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
Title 36 O.S. 1981 § 3636(F) mandates that if an insured desires to reject the required uninsured motorist coverage, the rejection must be made in writing. The statute affords no distinction between primary liability policies and secondary, excess, or “umbrella” policies. Had the legislature intended to exclude such policies from the statutory application, it could have done so. To the contrary, the statutory directive precisely states:
“(A) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued, delivered, renewed, or extended in this state with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless the policy includes the [uninsured motorist] coverage described in subsection (B) of this section.” [Emphasis added.]
I am of the view that “no policy” means “no policy”. This Court has traditionally *411held that an unambiguous statute should be construed in a literal way giving words their ordinary, commonly understood meaning. Gilbert Central Corp. v. State, 716 P.2d 654 (Okl.1986); Matter of Phillips Petroleum Company, 652 P.2d 288 (Okl.1982); Cave Springs Public School District 1-30 of Adair County v. Blair, 613 P.2d 1046 (Okl.1980); Cavett v. Geary Board of Education, 587 P.2d 991 (Okl.1978). It is hard to imagine words plainer than “no policy ... shall be issued”. Accordingly, under the provisions of our own statute, there is neither reason, nor room, for statutory construction. Our own uninsured motorist statute differs from those of other jurisdictions in important particulars and therefore cannot be governed by other state statutes which are inherently distinguishable.
Unless, or until, our legislature prescribes an exception to the “no policy” mandate of 36 O.S. 1981 § 3636(F), I am impelled to hold inviolate its literal import.