AUGUST 2026 | 27 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL clients on insurance coverages should scrutinize such policies carefully to make sure they sufficiently cover the risks inherent in such operations. Concomitantly, everything said about business law and real estate law will apply in the oil and gas context as well. So, oil and gas lawyers, we welcome you to our CLEs as well. CONCLUSION As noted, the foregoing survey is not exhaustive but hopefully proves that every lawyer needs a basic understanding of the way insurance coverage and insurance law impacts every law practice. That being so, each year’s insurance issue of the bar journal – and the next insurance law CLE – are well worth the time of every Oklahoma attorney. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Paul Kouri has practiced plaintiffs’ personal injury and insurance law for 20 years; he now works primarily as an insurance bad faith consultant and freelance writer (appellate and trial court level). ENDNOTES 1. E.g., Sullivan v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 1995 OK CIV APP 2, 889 P.2d 1285; Equity Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 2008 OK CIV APP 23, ¶16, 178 P.3d 201, 205. 2. Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 1980 OK 193, 621 P.2d 1155, impliedly recognizes this distinction but holds that punitive damages are not insurable by the actor, even when the actor is only grossly negligent (but a principal’s respondeat superior liability for punitive damages is insurable if the principal did not know of a bad “propensity”). 3. See e.g., Morgan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2021 OK 27, 488 P.3d 743. 4. Kan. City Life Ins. Co. v. Nipper, 1935 OK 1127, 51 P.2d 741. 5. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wheat, 313 F. App’x 76, 82 (10th Cir. 2008) (gunshot injury caused by firing gun with intent to scare is not covered “accident” under shooter’s homeowners policy because such injury is natural and foreseeable consequence of firing the gun); but see Penley v. Gulf Ins. Co., 1966 OK 84, 414 P.2d 305 (damage caused by employee’s intentional but mistaken act of putting regular gasoline in a diesel vehicle was still considered an “accident” for insurance coverage purposes – Penley is still good law). 6. See United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Briscoe, 1951 OK 386, 239 P.2d 754. 7. Some homeowners’ policies exclude all dog bite liability or attacks by known vicious dogs. 8. Briscoe, 1951 OK 386, ¶7, 239 P.2d 754, 756 (“Whether an injury is accidental is to be determined from the standpoint of the person injured. If the injury comes to him through external force, not of his choice or provocation, then, as to him, the injury is accidental.”). 9. 1990 OK 127, 803 P.2d 1124. 10. Cothren v. Emcasco Ins. Co., 1976 OK 137, ¶10, 555 P.2d 1037, 1039. 11. Oklahoma’s uninsured motorists’ statute, 36 O.S. §3636(C), defines an uninsured vehicle to also include an underinsured vehicle. 12. Cases are all over the map as to what is or is not a transportation use. Murrah bombing – no (Mayer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 OK 67, 944 P.2d 288); Burned in trunk – no (Safeco v Sanders, 1990 OK 129, 803 P.2d 688); Drive-by-shooting – maybe – if can show shooter exercised “control” of vehicle (Byus v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 1996 OK 25, 912 P.2d 845); Drive-by-shooting can also be covered by hit and run coverage (Hulsey v. MidAmerica Preferred, 1989 OK 107, 777 P.2d 932). 13. Per Ply v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2003 OK 97, 81 P.3d 643, bad maintenance need not be contemporaneous with the wreck. 14. 1994 OK CIV APP 148, ¶6, 889 P.2d 1258, 1260. 15. 813 F.2d 306 (10th Cir. 1987). 16. Though not an “insurance” concern, it may also be a good idea, though counteractive, to notify the client of their potential to make a claim so as to start the running of the limitations clock. 17. See e.g., United States v. Whittley, No. CR-19-78-G, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234914, at *3, 2021 WL 5830029 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2021). 18. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am. v. Hampton, 1985 OK 19, ¶21, 696 P.2d 1027, 1032. 19. E.g., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Stoll, 771 F. Supp. 781, 786 (E.D. La. 1991) (Section 178 is preempted by ERISA); Maretta v. Hillman, 722 S.E.2d 32 (Va. 2012) (recognizing federal life insurance not subject to state statutes terminating beneficiary status upon divorce). 20. See e.g., Dodson v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 1991 OK 24, 812 P.2d 372. 21. Id. at ¶16, 378. 22. Orthopedic Res., Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1312 (N.D. Okla. 2009). 23. 85A O.S. §3. 24. See e.g., First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 528 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Title insurance does not insure the value of the subject property; it insures only that the title to such property is unencumbered by unknown liens, easements, and the like which might affect the property’s value.”). 25. See e.g., Atwood v. Union P. R. Co., No. 90-4076, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11123, at *10 (10th Cir. May 20, 1991). 26. See e.g., Crown Energy Co. v. MidContinent Cas. Co., 2022 OK 60, 511 P.3d 1064. 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==