Oklahoma Supreme Court: UM Coverage Follows the Insured, Not the Vehicle

On August 14, 2019, John Randall Coates was riding his 1964 Triumph Bonneville motorcycle in Kay County, Oklahoma, when a vehicle driven by Mary Toney crossed his path and struck him. The collision left Coates with serious injuries and an at-fault driver who lacked adequate liability coverage.

Coates held two insurance policies through Progressive: a motorcycle policy, under which he had declined to purchase uninsured motorist coverage, and a separate automobile policy on his Dodge Ram pickup that included UM coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. He filed a claim under the auto policy after the crash. Progressive denied it. The insurer argued that because the motorcycle was not a listed vehicle on the auto policy, the UM coverage written into that policy simply did not apply to the motorcycle collision.

Coates, represented by Simone Fulmer Gaus, Harrison Lujan, Jacob Rowe, and Andrea Rust of Fulmer Sill, filed suit in the District Court of Kay County for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Coates partial summary judgment on the UM entitlement question, finding in his favor. It separately granted Progressive summary judgment dismissing the bad faith claim, a ruling the trial court reached after denying Coates additional time for discovery.

Progressive appealed the UM ruling; Coates cross-appealed on bad faith. On May 3, 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its opinion as 2022 OK 45. The court affirmed that Coates was entitled to UM benefits under his auto policy. Oklahoma law, the court explained, ties UM coverage to the insured person rather than to any specific vehicle. Progressive's policy exclusion, which tried to block recovery whenever an injury arose from a vehicle not listed on the same policy, directly conflicted with the protections set out in 36 O.S. Section 3636 and was therefore void.

On the bad faith claim, the court reversed. It found the trial court had abused its discretion by refusing Coates additional discovery time before ruling on that count, and it remanded the bad faith question for further proceedings. The combined effect of the decision was to restore both the UM benefits Coates had paid for and his right to pursue the insurer for the manner in which it handled his claim.