LAVENDER, Justice:
The issue certified for interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court by the court below and presented by petition for certio-rari is as follows:
In a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident where plaintiff driver sues defendant driver and also sues plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier alleging that the defendant driver was underinsured, is the following evidence admissible before the jury?
a. The liability insurance policy limits of the defendant driver.
b. The policy of uninsured motorist insurance issued to plaintiff driver and the identity of the company issuing the policy.
The partiés have stipulated:
1. Defendant Tidmore carried a policy of liability insurance on his vehicle in compliance with the requirements of the Oklahoma financial responsibility laws.
2. Tidmore’s policy was in full force and effect at the time of the collision and that [1280]*1280the proceeds of the policy will be available in the event that plaintiff recovers judgment against him.
3. Tidmore’s policy limit is less than the uninsured motorist coverage afforded by defendant State Farm Insurance Company to plaintiff Fullman under Fullman’s policy with it, and less than the amount prayed for by Fullman in her petition.
4. Fullman’s policy with State Farm provides uninsured motorist coverage for the collision with a policy limit of $25,000.
Defendants further agree to provide to the Court, if requested, copies of their respective policies.
Defendant State Farm agrees not to participate in the trial of the case and further agrees to be bound by the jury verdict.
At pre-trial conference, the court below ruled that the jury upon trial would be allowed to hear evidence as to the liability insurance limits under Tidmore’s policy and to hear evidence that plaintiff had an uninsured motorist insurance policy with State Farm. The court below entered a pre-trial order embodying the rulings, and that order was certified for interlocutory appeal.
The pertinent portion of 36 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 3636 providing for uninsured motorist coverage is as follows:
“(A) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued, delivered, renewed, or extended- in this state with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless the policy includes the coverage described in subsection (B) of this section.
“(B) The policy referred to in subsection (A) of this section shall provide coverage therein or supplemental thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom. Coverage shall be not less than the amounts or limits prescribed for bodily injury or death for a policy meeting the requirements of Section 7— 204 of Title 47, Oklahoma Statutes, as the same may be hereafter amended; ....
******
“(C) For the purposes of this coverage the term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency or whose liability insurer for any reason either cannot or is not legally required to afford at least the per person coverage limits with respect to the legal liability of its insured, applicable to any injured party under any uninsured motorist coverage covering such injured party.
Thus, by legislative definition an “uninsured motor vehicle,” insofar as prescribed insurance coverage is concerned, includes vehicles which are uninsured, hit-and-run vehicles, insured motor vehicles where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within policy limits by reason of the insolvency of the insurer.
In Keel v. MFA Insurance Company,1 we held that an insured who has a claim against an uninsured motorist has the following options:
(1) He may file an action directly against his insurance company without joining the uninsured motorist as a party defendant and litigate all of the issues of liability and damages in that one action.
(2) He may file an action joining both the uninsured motorist and the insurance company as party defendants and litigate all issues of liability and damages in one action.
(3) He may file an action against the uninsured motorist without joining the insurance company as a party defendant, but [1281]*1281give adequate notice of the filing and pend-ency of such action to the insurance company so that it may take whatever action it desires, including intervention.
(4) He may file an action against the uninsured motorist and give no notice to the insurance company.
Here the plaintiff chose the second option and joined both the “uninsured” motorist and plaintiff’s insurance carrier as parties defendant.
In Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Tran. Lines, Inc. v. Baker,2 we held that a municipality could by ordinance require a bus company to maintain liability insurance under legislative delegation of authority so to do. It is significant to point out that the ordinance there under consideration expressly provided that the insurer was not directly liable to the claimant. There, the trial court, over objection, permitted the joinder of the insurer as a party defendant in a personal injury action, and in its instructions to the jury forcefully advised the jury that the defendants were protected by liability insurance issued by the defendant insurance company. There, after determining insurer was not properly a party to the case, we held:
“This Court consistently has adhered to the rule that to inform or suggest to a jury that a defendant may be protected by liability insurance or that the loss will fall upon an insurance company, is prejudicial as a matter of law and constitutes ground for reversal of the judgment rendered.
“In Redman et al. v. McDaniel, Okl., 333 P.2d 500, we acknowledged the verity of this principle:
‘Experence has demonstrated that whenever jurors know that an insurance company will have to pay any judgment entered on their verdict, such knowledge will usually be reflected in a larger recovery.’ ”
In Redman v. McDaniel,3 we held in a case where liability insurance was not required to be carried by the defendant and the insurance carrier was not a party to the cause, the plaintiff is entitled to ask jurors on voir dire such questions as are necessary or may become necessary to enable him to discover whether a juror is interested in the insurance business, especially where he believes that some of the jurors may be writing insurance for an insurance company that he believes has written insurance for the defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LAVENDER, Justice:
The issue certified for interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court by the court below and presented by petition for certio-rari is as follows:
In a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident where plaintiff driver sues defendant driver and also sues plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier alleging that the defendant driver was underinsured, is the following evidence admissible before the jury?
a. The liability insurance policy limits of the defendant driver.
b. The policy of uninsured motorist insurance issued to plaintiff driver and the identity of the company issuing the policy.
The partiés have stipulated:
1. Defendant Tidmore carried a policy of liability insurance on his vehicle in compliance with the requirements of the Oklahoma financial responsibility laws.
2. Tidmore’s policy was in full force and effect at the time of the collision and that [1280]*1280the proceeds of the policy will be available in the event that plaintiff recovers judgment against him.
3. Tidmore’s policy limit is less than the uninsured motorist coverage afforded by defendant State Farm Insurance Company to plaintiff Fullman under Fullman’s policy with it, and less than the amount prayed for by Fullman in her petition.
4. Fullman’s policy with State Farm provides uninsured motorist coverage for the collision with a policy limit of $25,000.
Defendants further agree to provide to the Court, if requested, copies of their respective policies.
Defendant State Farm agrees not to participate in the trial of the case and further agrees to be bound by the jury verdict.
At pre-trial conference, the court below ruled that the jury upon trial would be allowed to hear evidence as to the liability insurance limits under Tidmore’s policy and to hear evidence that plaintiff had an uninsured motorist insurance policy with State Farm. The court below entered a pre-trial order embodying the rulings, and that order was certified for interlocutory appeal.
The pertinent portion of 36 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 3636 providing for uninsured motorist coverage is as follows:
“(A) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued, delivered, renewed, or extended- in this state with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless the policy includes the coverage described in subsection (B) of this section.
“(B) The policy referred to in subsection (A) of this section shall provide coverage therein or supplemental thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom. Coverage shall be not less than the amounts or limits prescribed for bodily injury or death for a policy meeting the requirements of Section 7— 204 of Title 47, Oklahoma Statutes, as the same may be hereafter amended; ....
******
“(C) For the purposes of this coverage the term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency or whose liability insurer for any reason either cannot or is not legally required to afford at least the per person coverage limits with respect to the legal liability of its insured, applicable to any injured party under any uninsured motorist coverage covering such injured party.
Thus, by legislative definition an “uninsured motor vehicle,” insofar as prescribed insurance coverage is concerned, includes vehicles which are uninsured, hit-and-run vehicles, insured motor vehicles where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within policy limits by reason of the insolvency of the insurer.
In Keel v. MFA Insurance Company,1 we held that an insured who has a claim against an uninsured motorist has the following options:
(1) He may file an action directly against his insurance company without joining the uninsured motorist as a party defendant and litigate all of the issues of liability and damages in that one action.
(2) He may file an action joining both the uninsured motorist and the insurance company as party defendants and litigate all issues of liability and damages in one action.
(3) He may file an action against the uninsured motorist without joining the insurance company as a party defendant, but [1281]*1281give adequate notice of the filing and pend-ency of such action to the insurance company so that it may take whatever action it desires, including intervention.
(4) He may file an action against the uninsured motorist and give no notice to the insurance company.
Here the plaintiff chose the second option and joined both the “uninsured” motorist and plaintiff’s insurance carrier as parties defendant.
In Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Tran. Lines, Inc. v. Baker,2 we held that a municipality could by ordinance require a bus company to maintain liability insurance under legislative delegation of authority so to do. It is significant to point out that the ordinance there under consideration expressly provided that the insurer was not directly liable to the claimant. There, the trial court, over objection, permitted the joinder of the insurer as a party defendant in a personal injury action, and in its instructions to the jury forcefully advised the jury that the defendants were protected by liability insurance issued by the defendant insurance company. There, after determining insurer was not properly a party to the case, we held:
“This Court consistently has adhered to the rule that to inform or suggest to a jury that a defendant may be protected by liability insurance or that the loss will fall upon an insurance company, is prejudicial as a matter of law and constitutes ground for reversal of the judgment rendered.
“In Redman et al. v. McDaniel, Okl., 333 P.2d 500, we acknowledged the verity of this principle:
‘Experence has demonstrated that whenever jurors know that an insurance company will have to pay any judgment entered on their verdict, such knowledge will usually be reflected in a larger recovery.’ ”
In Redman v. McDaniel,3 we held in a case where liability insurance was not required to be carried by the defendant and the insurance carrier was not a party to the cause, the plaintiff is entitled to ask jurors on voir dire such questions as are necessary or may become necessary to enable him to discover whether a juror is interested in the insurance business, especially where he believes that some of the jurors may be writing insurance for an insurance company that he believes has written insurance for the defendants. But in doing so, it is equally well settled that he should not indicate to the jury that defendant is insured unless it is necessary in order to obtain a jury free from favoritism toward defendant, and when plaintiff unnecessarily and without justification brings the fact of insurance coverage to the attention of the jury, such may be reversible error.
Thus, we conclude, that where the fact of liability insurance coverage is brought before the jury unnecessarily or forcefully where liability insurance coverage is not legislatively mandated and where the insurer has no direct liability to the claimant, such jury revelations are, as a matter of law, prejudicial, and if the insured is or might have been harmed thereby, reversible error.
On the other hand, the insurer under a compulsory insurance policy may be joined as a defendant with the insured in an action by an injured third person, generally, on the theory that under statutes requiring and controlling compulsory insurance, a direct or joint right is created in favor of the injured person against both the insured and the insurer.4 And our Court has on many occasions held that where a motorist is required by statute or ordinance to file a policy of liability insurance to protect the interests of the public or injured persons, though not expressly giving to them a direct benefit under the policy, the joinder of [1282]*1282the insurer and the insured in the same action is permitted.5
In the case before us and under 36 O.S. Supp.1976, § 3636, supra, liability insurance coverage on a motorist is not expressly legislatively mandated; but if liability insurance is proffered to a motorist, uninsured motorist coverage, as defined in the statute, is required, unless the named insured opts to reject such uninsured motorist coverage under conditions set forth in the statute but which are not herein involved.
In considering an uninsured motorist statute similar to 36 O.S.1976, § 3636(B), the Kansas Supreme Court, in the case of Winner v. Ratzlaff,6 held that the insured may join in one action both the uninsured motorist and the claimant’s insurer. Pursuant to pre-trial order the fact that the insurance company was a party to the litigation or the existence of uninsured motorist coverage was not disclosed to the jury. The verdict and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant uninsured motorist and plaintiff appealed. A Kansas statute forbids the mention of insurance coverage during the trial of a damage action, much as the Oklahoma Supreme Court has forbidden it by judicial pronouncements. In weighing the prohibition against mentioning insurance coverage on the one hand against the plaintiff’s contractual right to determine whom he would sue, the Kansas Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s substantive rights by reason of his insurance contract not only to determine whom he would sue, but also in the manner he desired. The Kansas Court concluded that, although by stipulation or judicial admission there were no affirmative issues to be tried between the insured plaintiff and his insurance carrier, the plaintiff nevertheless had a right to maintain the action against both the insured and the uninsured motorist even though such procedure permitted the plaintiff to place before the jury the fact that the claim was covered by the insurance and the name of the insurer.
We find the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court persuasive in its determination that the insured claimant has a contractual right to bring suit against its insurer under its uninsured motorist coverage and to join as a defendant the third party alleged tort feasor. However, the facts in Winner v. Ratzlaff, supra, are significantly distinguishable from the case before us. The plaintiff here seeks to place before the jury the name of the underinsured defendant’s insurer and the terms of the underinsured defendant’s policy. Here, the underinsured defendant’s insurer is not a party to the suit. Neither is there a contractual right on the part of the plaintiff to maintain a claim against the underinsured defendant’s insurer. Thus, the foundation upon which Winner v. Ratzlaff, supra, rested is here modified.
What remains is simply the determination of whether the trial court should permit evidence to be presented to the jury of the name of both insurers and the terms of their respective insurance policys where, because of the stipulations entered in the case, such evidence could not tend to prove or disprove any unresolved issues in the case and could only serve to prejudice the jury by advising its members that any judgment for the plaintiff to the extent that it exceeds the underinsured defendant’s coverage up to the underinsured motorist’s policy limits will be paid by plaintiff’s insurance carrier. The only justification for such a ruling is plaintiff’s asserted right to control the manner in which his lawsuit shall proceed which plaintiff postulates includes the right to place before the jury the names of both plaintiff’s insurer and defendant’s insurer, together with the terms of the respective policies. In contrast to plaintiff’s asserted right is the right of plaintiff’s insurer to a fair and impartial jury unhampered by the obviously prejudicial impact of unnecessarily and forcefully having thrust upon their minds the fact that plaintiff’s damages will be paid wholly or in substantial part by plaintiff’s insurer. When placed in proper perspective, we be[1283]*1283lieve the plaintiff’s asserted right becomes more illusory than substantial. We therefore hold that plaintiff’s insurer is a proper party to the lawsuit. However, evidence as to the names of both insurers and the terms of their respective policies should be withheld from the jury. The issue of the defendant motorist’s negligence and the fact and quantum of plaintiff’s damages may thus be fairly submitted to the jury. In the event that verdict is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the trial court, armed with the stipulations entered in the case, can properly determine plaintiff’s insurer’s ultimate liability under the terms of the respective policies, and enter judgment accordingly.
The ruling of the trial court is reversed.
IRWIN, C. J., SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., and BOX, Special Judge, concur.
BARNES, V. C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
HODGES, DOOLIN and OPALA, JJ., dissent.
WILLIAMS, J., certified his disqualification. The Honorable Dwain D. Box was appointed in his stead.