Insurer could limit defense to tort claims Okla law

In City of Choctaw v. Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group, 2013 OK 6, the issue was whether a claim for inverse condemnation was covered by Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group.  The policy excluded coverage for claims of eminent domain (e.g., where the government files suit  to take private property for public purposes); and for inverse condemnation (where the landowner files suit because he believes the government has taken his property for public purposes).  Despite this, the trial court ruled in the City's favor.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed.  The insurance company had given the city notice that the policy did not cover the claim for inverse condemnation, The majority on the court found no basis for estoppel, as the trial court found.  The dissent noted that some facts would permit a finding of estoppel; and it remained a fact question.  Despite this, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the insured with directions to enter judgment for the insurer. 

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.