"Other Insurance" clause does not violate mandatory car insurance law

In American Farmers & Ranchers v. Shelter, American's insured was driving a car owned by Shelter's insured when he had an accident.  American claimed that the "other insurance" clause in Shelter's policy violated Oklahoma's Compulsory Insurance law and should be disregarded such that Shelter should be required to pay its limits before American was required to pay anything.  The trial court disagreed.  The trial court found that since both policies had mutually exclusive other insurance clauses, the clauses would be disregarded and each policy would pay a prorated amount.  The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed. 

The Court cites Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spring Valley Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 1987 OK 121, 747 P.2d 947 as follows: 

When concurrent policies have such "other insurance" clauses which cancel each other, we hold that they are mutually repugnant and are to be disregarded, with the loss shared by the insurers on a pro rata basis. Where the insurers have designated in their policies the same method of apportionment, the contracts will control. Absent concurring provisions for apportionment, coverage of the loss is to be shared on a pro rata basis according to the ratio each respective policy limit bears to the cumulative limit of all concurrent policies. ...
...
Oklahoma's compulsory liability insurance laws do not dictate the determination of primary coverage.... Statutory policy is implicated only when insurers deny liability, not when they are in dispute as to which will provide primary coverage.

Even if the last part of the opinion was dicta, the Court found it persuasive and found that both insurers should pay their pro rata amounts to the injured party.  The court concludes that Oklahoma's Compulsory Insurance Law "does not constrain an insurer from declaring its coverage as excess when there is other insurance which covers its insured's liability with respect to a claim also covered by its policy. The statutory policy of the [compulsory insurance law] is implicated only if the insurer denies liability. It does not control a dispute between insurers as to which provides primary coverage. Such a dispute is a matter of contract. "

Oklahoma Casinos and Sovereign Immunity

Griffin, while attempting to enter an Indian casino, stepped into a flower bed and fell.  She sued the casino for negligence in state court.  The casino claimed it was immune from suit in state court, as a sovereign, and that Griffin would have to sue in tribal court.  The court disagreed.  It found that under the  State-Tribal Gaming Act and The Model Tribal Gaming Compact, the tribe has granted limited consent to be sued by patrons in courts of competent jurisidiction.  State district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction. 

The gaming compact mandates liability insurance coverage for the benefit of the public, prohibits the liability insurer from asserting tribal immunity, prescribes the procedure for casino patrons to claim damages, and expresses the tribe’s consent to suit.  Claims against tribes are limited to amounts set forth in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, and the presuit procedures found there must be followed for claims by patrons against tribes.  The Compact further requires tribes to carry insurance, and prohibits the insurer from asserting tribal immunity.

We believe that suits against tribes will increase as more and more casinos are built, especially since more and more casinos are making alcoholic beverages more readily available to their patrons. 

See, Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola;

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, (state district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction);

Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola; (state district court may determine tort claims arising in Indian casinos against tribes or tribal enterprises)