Anderson v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 95,659.,95,659. |
| Citation | 38 P.3d 240,2001 OK CIV APP 141 |
| Parties | Natalie ANDERSON, a Minor, by and through her Father and Next Friend, Cameron ANDERSON, and Cameron Anderson, Individually, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Kelly A. George, Kenneth G. Cole, Oklahoma City, OK, For Plaintiff/Appellant.
Stefan K. Doughty, Chris Condren, Oklahoma City, OK, For Defendant/Appellee.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.
¶ 1 Appellant, Natalie Anderson, minor child of Appellant, Cameron Anderson, was on the premises of Metro Fitness Centers d/b/a Curves for Women (Metro) with her mother. Natalie was injured when a piece of equipment fell on her head. Appellants filed a claim against Appellee, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (Company), Metro's insurance carrier, for payment of Natalie's medical expenses under the policy's no fault medical payments provision. After eight months passed without payment, Anderson sued Company for bad faith. Company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing neither Anderson nor Natalie had standing to sue it for bad faith because they were third parties to the insurance contract. The trial court sustained the motion and entered summary judgment in Company's favor. Anderson and Natalie appeal.
¶ 2 The trial court held:
Before this Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company. Based on the briefs and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Rednour v. JC & P Partnership 996 P.2d 487 is persuasive and accurately reflects the law in Oklahoma, by which this Court is bound. Therefore, this Court finds the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be sustained and judgment should be entered for the Defendant.
¶ 3 Rednour v. JC & P Partnership, 2000 OK CIV APP 10, 996 P.2d 487 (cert. denied), canvassed prior Oklahoma cases in which claimants seeking insurance proceeds alleged bad faith claims against insurers. In general, the cases applied the third party beneficiary statute.1 A common thread throughout those court decisions is that to determine who has standing to bring a bad faith claim against an insurer, one must consider the contracting parties' primary intent as reflected in the policy. Even if it is undisputed that a party is entitled to benefits under an insurance policy, the insurer's duty to deal fairly and act in good faith is limited. It does not extend to every party entitled to payment of insurance benefits. There must be either a contractual or statutory relationship between the insurer and the party asserting the bad faith claim before the duty arises. Rednour, and Roach v. Atlas Life Insurance Company, 1989 OK 27, 769 P.2d 158. "[T]he insured's reason for purchasing the insurance policy determines if the required contractual relationship exists, not the entitlement to payment of insurance proceeds." Roach, and Gianfillippo v. Northland Casualty Company, 1993 OK 125, 861 P.2d 308.
¶ 4 To preclude a life insurance beneficiary from bringing a bad faith claim "would negate a substantial reason for the insured's purchase of the policy—the peace of mind and security which it provides in the event of loss." Rednour and Roach. An insured purchases an uninsured motorist policy to protect himself, and others defined as "insureds" under the policy, if he is injured in an accident with another motorist who is uninsured or underinsured. The insurer promises to pay its own insured, rather than third parties, and the insured has standing to bring a bad faith claim. However, an injured passenger, Gianfillippo, in a vehicle covered only incidentally by an automobile liability policy, did not enjoy the statutory relationship of "insured" under an uninsured motorist policy and could not bring a bad faith action directly against the insurer. See Gianfillippo. ¶ 5 Under similar circumstances to the instant case, the Rednour Court had to determine whether a claimant under the medical payments provision of a premises liability insurance policy could bring a claim for bad faith against the insurer. The Court stated the purpose of premises liability coverage is the protection of assets of a business owner. The Court further stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
...THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS ON CERTIORARI ¶ 11 Owner contends COCA erred in relying on Rednour v. JC & P Partnership16 and Anderson v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co.17 for its analysis that she is not a third-party beneficiary of the condominium policy.18 She claims these cases are di......
-
Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke
...relationship” between the insurer and the third party. McWhirter, 878 P.2d at 1058;see also Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 38 P.3d 240, 241 (Okla.Civ.App.2001) (“There must be either a contractual or statutory relationship between the insurer and the party ......
-
A.B. v. Health Care Serv. Corp.
...an insurer, one must consider the contracting parties' primary intent as reflected in the policy. Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 38 P.3d 240, 241 (Okla. 2001).Even if it is undisputed that a party is entitled to benefits under an insurance policy, the insur......