Nunn v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Nunn v. Stewart

1988 OK 51, 756 P.2d 6, 1988 Okla. LEXIS 50, 1988 WL 44572

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 3, 1988

Docket62883

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1988 OK 51 (Nunn v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nunn v. Stewart, 1988 OK 51, 756 P.2d 6, 1988 Okla. LEXIS 50, 1988 WL 44572 (Okla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER ON CERTIORARI

DOOLIN, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Mary Lou Nunn, has sought writ of certiorari from this Court to obtain review of an opinion rendered in this case by the Court of Appeals, Oklahoma City Divisions on March 12, 1986. This Court has previously granted the requested writ.

Two issues were raised in appellant’s petition for certiorari. The first issue concerns the Court of Appeal’s ruling that a written rejection is mandated by 36 O.S.1981 § 3636(F) only as to the total rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. We do not find this issue to be proper for address by this Court. The import of the Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of appellant on the question of the insurer’s (appel-lee’s) duty to affirmatively offer limits of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limits of the relevant policies was to award appellant the benefit of coverage equal to the higher liability limits. No actual relief could result to appellant from our examination of this question on certiorari. See Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20, 275 P. 1064 (1929).

The second issue raised by appellant, however, we find to be meritorious. The Court of Appeals, in regard to the question of the date from which interest should be due on the sums payable under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policies covering appellant, properly stated that under 23 O.S.1981 § 22:

“The law in Oklahoma is that where the obligation is to pay money, and that obligation is fixed, and the only thing to be determined is the amount, interest will attach from the time the obligation arises.” ...

The Court of Appeals then correctly stated that the obligation to pay under the uninsured motorist provisions did not arise until the liability of the uninsured motorist was [7]*7fixed. The Court of Appeals then incorrectly held that this liability did not become fixed until judgment was rendered by the trial court. A review of the record indicates that appellee confessed the liability of the uninsured motorist as of June 25, 1983.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court of Appeals’ opinion rendered in this case is hereby MODIFIED to reflect that interest on the amount due to appellant from appellee under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policies covering her shall run from the date of June 25, 1983 until paid, pursuant to the terms of 23 O.S.1981 § 22. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is WITHDRAWN FROM PUBLICATION.

HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, OPALA, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, J., dissents. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., disqualifies.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER ON CERTIORARI

DOOLIN, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Mary Lou Nunn, has sought writ of certiorari from this Court to obtain review of an opinion rendered in this case by the Court of Appeals, Oklahoma City Divisions on March 12, 1986. This Court has previously granted the requested writ.

Two issues were raised in appellant’s petition for certiorari. The first issue concerns the Court of Appeal’s ruling that a written rejection is mandated by 36 O.S.1981 § 3636(F) only as to the total rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. We do not find this issue to be proper for address by this Court. The import of the Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of appellant on the question of the insurer’s (appel-lee’s) duty to affirmatively offer limits of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limits of the relevant policies was to award appellant the benefit of coverage equal to the higher liability limits. No actual relief could result to appellant from our examination of this question on certiorari. See Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20, 275 P. 1064 (1929).

The second issue raised by appellant, however, we find to be meritorious. The Court of Appeals, in regard to the question of the date from which interest should be due on the sums payable under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policies covering appellant, properly stated that under 23 O.S.1981 § 22:

“The law in Oklahoma is that where the obligation is to pay money, and that obligation is fixed, and the only thing to be determined is the amount, interest will attach from the time the obligation arises.” ...

The Court of Appeals then correctly stated that the obligation to pay under the uninsured motorist provisions did not arise until the liability of the uninsured motorist was [7]*7fixed. The Court of Appeals then incorrectly held that this liability did not become fixed until judgment was rendered by the trial court. A review of the record indicates that appellee confessed the liability of the uninsured motorist as of June 25, 1983.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court of Appeals’ opinion rendered in this case is hereby MODIFIED to reflect that interest on the amount due to appellant from appellee under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policies covering her shall run from the date of June 25, 1983 until paid, pursuant to the terms of 23 O.S.1981 § 22. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is WITHDRAWN FROM PUBLICATION.

HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, OPALA, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, J., dissents. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., disqualifies.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1988 OK 51, 756 P.2d 6, 1988 Okla. LEXIS 50, 1988 WL 44572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunn-v-stewart-okla-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack