THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 22 | AUGUST 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. you really have pled into the specific coverage. Consider a case where the policy has separate coverage sections and separate policy limits for sexual assault and ordinary nursing home abuse (e.g., failure to protect against ordinary harms associated with such care such as falls, bed sores, or malnutrition). After a review of such a policy, the attorney may need to amend the petition to make clear that the claims involve both sexual assault and failures to provide good care, thereby gaining potential access to two separate coverage limits – which can make the difference in achieving a decent settlement on a difficult case. Sometimes the opposite problem is present. For instance, the petition may have focused on sexual misconduct but the insurance policy obtained in discovery shows a broad exclusion for all claims “related to” or “arising from” sexual or other acts of intentional abuse. Such “arising from” language will broadly apply to all claims for such misconduct including even the claims against the employer directly for negligent hiring and retention. It may be possible though to amend to focus on allegations of nonsexual touching and public humiliation (which are at least arguably covered under persuasive legal authority); this may also require adding additional detail regarding legitimate but more “mundane” violations of state and federal statutes or general negligence rules concerning nursing home care because such claims should be covered despite the broad exclusion. Again, such pleading subtleties may permit the resolution of a claim that is otherwise an uninsured claim that may ultimately be bankrupted or otherwise uncollectible from the defendant or defendants. Another area where careful pleading can be important is with dog bite cases. While it sounds delightfully alarming to allege that the plaintiff was mauled by a vicious pitbull terrier, many homeowners’ insurance policies now exclude bites by certain breeds; pitbulls always make such lists, sometimes alongside Rottweilers, Akitas, and other specified breeds).7 For this reason, it is probably best to avoid naming breeds to let the insurance company attempt to nail down its own exclusion. Similar pleading concerns arise with premises liability and motor vehicle claims (which will be covered in greater detail below). Beyond just pleading into coverage at the outset, evaluating available coverage as early as possible is also useful for obtaining best outcomes. Consider a claim involving two similar policies written on a single business defendant where it appears that both policies apply to the subject wreck (perhaps on a prorata basis as opposed to one policy being truly “excess” coverage). If damages justify a demand for both limits, a detailed demand letter showing that the attorney understands the coverage subtleties may result in the tendering of policy limits in a case that could easily have been litigated for another year or more (and resolved with further compromise, such as under only one of the policies) had that early demand letter not been sent. The above raises a parallel topic: every personal injury attorney should understand the importance of sending an effective “policy limits demand” to the liability insurers. With any claim that could exceed policy limits, that is key to setting the insurer up to ultimately pay a potential verdict against its insured “in excess” of the policy limits. That threat alone is a powerful impetus driving liability insurers to resolve a claim for policy limits; if the insurer refuses to pay, that policy limits demand is an important step in ultimately forcing the insurer to pay any excess verdict (one that exceeds the policy limits). But now we will return briefly to the question of “intent” as it pertains to insurance coverage. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS Uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage (UM) is a slightly different beast from liability coverage when it comes to the rules regarding intent. An insured may at times obtain UM coverage for injury caused by an intentional act. That is because, as noted earlier, the question of whether an act is or is not intentional is determined not from the perspective of the tortfeasor, but from the perspective of the insured.8 Thus an intentional act will usually be covered by insurance if the pertinent actor is not also the insured; that analysis applies to make UM coverage (as opposed to liability coverage) generally apply to intentional acts because the UM insured will not generally be said to have intended the injurious acts of the uninsured motorist who caused the insured’s injuries. Willard v. Kelley9 is a good example of this concept. Officer Willard was in hot pursuit of a suspected armed robber who crashed and then shot at Officer Willard. Officer Willard drew his weapon and knelt next to his patrol car and was shot in the arm. He ultimately sued his UM carrier for coverage. One of the defenses raised by the insurer was that the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==