A foreign exchange student from Spain, seriously injured in a crash while riding in a friend’s car, was insured by her host family’s uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled.
In a case that could serve as a guide in other jurisdictions, justices reviewing the facts of Serra v. Estate of Broughton sought to clarify whether the term “ward” in the auto insurance policy should be defined as a court-ordered arrangement or as its ordinary meaning. The court chose the latter, thereby extending benefits to the injured teen.
Although every auto insurance policy may vary, most contain provisions that extend coverage to resident relatives, frequent drivers and, in some cases, “wards.” In this case, the term “ward” wasn’t defined in the policy, but the trial court decided it should be defined as it had been statutorily. That meant applying a statutory definition in which the individual had a formally-appointed guardian or conservator over his or her person or property. On appeal, plaintiff argued that “ward” should be defined as an ordinary term because the policy lacked a definition and thus was ambiguous in this regard. When insurance policies are ambiguous, courts have generally held disputes should be determined in favor of the insured. Continue reading ›