INDEX AUTO LIABILITY 3.1 UNINSURED - UNDERINSURED COVERAGE 1 Statutory Citation UM/UIM Definitions 1 General 1 Statutory Minimum Coverage Persons Insured, including relatives 2 Occupants of Insured vehicle Availability of UM coverage to excluded drivers while operating vehicle 3 No UM coverage if uninsured occupying vehicle owned or available for regular use by insured or spouse (i.e., no pay, no play: ) 3 Rejection Requirement.~... 3 Instances requiring new UM rejection 3 Must offer increased limits ~..~. ~ Offer and rejection issues... 3 Ability to stack policy benefits...5 The pre-conditions (i.e., trigger ) to UM coverage 6 Is UMcoverage primary? 6 Priority among insurers ~. ~. ~. 6 No distinction between UM & UIM 6 Efforts to exclude, limit or offset UM benefits 7 Tentative settlement with tortfeasor s insurer and substitute payment by UM insurer 8 Effect of prior denial ~...~. 9 Subrogation ~...~.. 9 Can injured insured collect less than tortfeasor s limits and still pursue a UM claim? 10 Are attorney s fees recoverable on UM contract suits? 10 Uninsured status ~ 10 Liens ~ 10 What is the statute of limitations for an alleged breach of UM contract and when does the cause of action arise? 10 Baysinger & Green, LLP Page OKC (405) 235-1611 OKLAHOMA LAW AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INDEX
3.2 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 11 Statutory Limits (BI and PD) 11 3.3 INSURABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES 11 3.4 NOFAULT 11 3.5 MEDICAL PAYMENTS 11 3.6 GUEST STATUTE 11 3.7 LEGAL AND/OR FACTUAL DEFENSES 12 Last Clear Chance 12 Sudden Stop 12 Unavoidable Accident ~. 12 Seat Belt Defense 12 Mechanical Defect.~ 12 Sudden Physical Illness ~ 12 3.8 NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT 13 470.S. 6-307 13 3.9 LIABILITY COVERAGE - AUTOMOBILE 13 Permissive user ~.. 13 Policy exclusions 14 Discovery of Auto Liability Insurance 15 3.10 SALVAGE VEHICLES 15 Baysinger & Green, LLP Page ii OKC (405)235-1611 OKLAHOMA LAW AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INDEX
AUTO LIABILITY LAW 3.1 UNINSURED - UNDERINSURED COVERAGE Statutory Citation UM/UIM Definitions General 36 O.S. 3636 et. seq. UM provides coverage for the protection of persons insured who are entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured and hit-and-run vehicles because of injury, sickness, disease and/or death resulting from the accident. An uninsured motor vehicle also includes an insured motor vehicle in which the coverage is insufficient to satisfy the loss. Further, an uninsured motor vehicle includes an insured motor vehicle where the insurer is unable to make payment because of insolvency. The controlling UM statute is the one in effect at the time the policy was issued or last renewed before the accident. Last revision to UM statute, 36 O.S. 3636, was effective 11/01/04. Release of a tortfeasor from all liability by the insured bars claim under UM coverage. Porter v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co., 1982 OK 23; Frey v. Independence Fire and Gas. Co., 1985 OK 25. Unless, however, the UM carrier was on notice that the insured intended to make a UM claim and had an opportunity to preserve its subrogation rights. Strong v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2005 OK CIV APP 9. UM policy requirement of actual physical contact by hit and run vehicle is void. Biggs v. State Farm, 1977 OK 135. A vehicle is hit and run for purposes of UM so long as the operator thereof has not been ascertained. There is no duty on injured party to ascertain or attempt to ascertain name of owner or operator after hit and run vehicles leaves the scene of accident. The burden is OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 1
. Overview does not provide an authoritative or on UM insured to prove other vehicle, driver of which caused accident, is uninsured. Proof of futile search for insurance coverage for other vehicle will raise presumption that other vehicle is uninsured. Brown v. United States Automobile Association, 1984 OK 55. UM coverage is primary, meaning that when the preconditions for a loss exist, the uninsured motorist carrier is liable for the entire amount of the insured s loss from the first dollar up to the UM policy limits without regard to the presence of any other insurance. Burch v. Allstate, 1998 OK 129. Statutory Minimum Coverage Persons insured including relatives UM limits shall not be less than minimum limits 10/20 required for BI liability. The limits increase to 25/50 for policies issued or renewed on or after April 1,2005. Typically, the named insured and members of insured s family which reside with insured are covered as well as others who are riding in the auto with insured. Review the policy language including definitions of you, resident and/or household member. Family member is defined as a household resident and includes the named insured s step-brother. Filton v. Equity Fire & Cas., 1992 OK 2. Occupants of insured vehicle Occupants are covered. Occupying is broad enough to include a person who was struck by a car and injured after he stopped to help repair the insured s car at the side of the road, even though he was not actually inside the car. The court indicated that the issue is to be determined by a case by case analysis depending on the circumstances of the accident and use of the insured vehicle. Wickham v. Equity Fire & Gas., 1994 OK CIV APP 148. OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 2
Availability of UM coverage to excluded drivers while operating vehicle No UM coverage if uninsured occupying vehicle owned or available for regular use by insured or spouse (i.e. no pay, no play ) Reiection Reguirement Instances reguiring new UM rejection Must offer increased limits Offer and rejection issues An excluded driver, while operating the vehicle, was injured due to the negligent actions of an uninsured motorist. The named driver exclusion was unambiguous (excluding any coverage benefits) and was held to not violate the public policy of Oklahoma s uninsured motorist laws. O Brien v. Dorrough, 1996 OK CIV APP 25. There is no UM coverage for any insured while occupying a vehicle owned by, or furnished or available for the regular use of the named insured, a resident spouse of the named insured, or a resident relative of the named insured, if such vehicle is not insured by a motor vehicle insurance policy. 36 O.S. 3636(E). A named insured or applicant shall have the right to reject UM coverage in writing. 36 O.S. 3636(G). Statute provides that selection, rejection or exercise of option not to purchase UM by a named insured or applicant shall be valid for all insureds under the policy and any renewal, reinstatement or replacement policy. Change or addition of named insured; additional (not substitute) vehicle added to personal lines policy; and any amendment to bodily injury coverage. 36 0.3. 3636(H). Statute requires that increased UM limits be offered and purchased if desired not to exceed limits provided in policy for BI Liability. 36 O.S. 3636(B). 3636(A) requires an offer of UM coverage; and 3636(F) requires any such rejection be by a named insured or applicant. When an insurance carrier violates 3636(F) by failing to obtain a written rejection of UM coverage, UM coverage is imputed to the extent of the minimum financial responsibility limits (currently 10/20 in Oklahoma -- set to change to 25/50 April 1, 2005). May v. National Union Fire Ins. OKc (405)235-1611 Page 3
Co., 1996 OK 52. Any such written rejection extends to any renewal, reinstatement, substitute, amended or replacement policies according to 3636(F). However, 3636(G) provides that a new written rejection is required when there are enumerated material changes, such as: (a) change in named insured; (b) an additional named insured; (c) an additional vehicle, not a replacement vehicle, on non-commercial auto liability policies; and (d) amendments to bodily injury liability coverage. In the absence of another new signed written rejection form attendant to these circumstances, UM coverage will be imputed. No UM offer is required on an umbrella policy. Moser v. Liberty Mutual, 1986 OK 78. Umbrella policies are not the type of policy the UM statute requires be accompanied by a UM offer. A self-insured car rental company is not required to offer UM coverage to a renter; accordingly, no UM coverage is imputed by operation of law. The rationale being that self-insurers are not transformed into insurance companies as contemplated by the insurance code. McSorley v. Hertz, 19940K 120. A note of caution should plaintiff s counsel cite Plaster v. State Farm, 1989 OK 167, for the proposition UM coverage is imputed because the named insured UM claimant did not sign the written rejection of UM coverage. The 1981 version of the UM statute provided that the named insured shall have the right to reject such uninsured motorist coverage in writing., so in those situations where only one named insured signed the written rejection, it was not effective as to the non-signing named insured. However, the UM statute was amended in 1990 to provide that a named insured or applicant shall have the right to reject such uninsured motorist coverage in writing.... As long as a named insured or applicant Bays inger & Green, L.L.P. Page 4 OKC (405) 235-1611
signs a written rejection, it is effective as to all insureds. Plaster is based on an old statute, now amended. Ability to stack policy Oklahoma distinguishes between Class I insured(s), benefits which includes the named insured(s) and resident relatives, and Class II insured(s), which includes permissive users and guest passengers. In those fact situations where stacking is permitted, only Class I insureds can stack. Class II cannot stack. If insurer charges a sedarate premium for each vehicle insured for UM coverage, Class I insured may stack the coverage of vehicles in the household. Does not make any difference if vehicles are insured under separate policies or multiple vehicles are insured under a single policy. Class I insured may stack commercial, fleet UM coverage. Class II insured, e.g. an unnamed employee covered by policy solely because of policy provision covering permissive drivers, may not stack under employer s UM policy. Rogers v. Goad, 1987 OK 59. If a single per policy UM premium is charged regardless of the number of vehicles insured, stacking is not required. Contract should show that insured s intent was to agree to such a limitation. Insured shall be given option of paying additional UM premium for higher limits. Scott v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 19890K 26. However, an insurer is not required to offer stackable UM coverage when new vehicle added to existing policy in a single insurance policy covering multiple vehicles. Withrow v. Pickard, 1995 OK 120. Also, where the insurer charges an increased premium on a single policy for multiple vehicles, and the premium is the equivalent of separate premiums Page 5 OKC (405)235-1611
.? Overview does not provide an authoritative or on each car under multi-car policy, the insured may stack his UM benefits. Wilson v. Allstate, 1996 OK 22. The pre-conditions (i.e trigger ) to UM coverage If the tortfeasor (or any one of multiple tortfeasors) has insufficient liability limits with respect to his/her legal liability to the UM insured, UM coverage is then triggered. Conversely, if the tortfeasor (or every one of multiple tortfeasors) has sufficient liability limits with respect to his/her legal liability to the UM insured, UM coverage is not triggered. Is UM coverage primary Priority among insurers No distinction between UM&UIM Yes, subject to the limits. Once UM coverage is triggered and becomes applicable, the coverage is primary meaning that an uninsured motorist carrier is liable for the entire amount of the insured s loss from the first dollar up to the UM policy limits without regard to the presence of any other insurance. Burch v. Allstate, 1998 OK 129. There is no priority of payment where multiple UM insurers are involved, regardless of any UM policy provision stating that UM coverage under that policy shall be in excess of other UM coverage. A UM insurer should settle with the UM insured, then work out among the other UM insurers (through a subrogation lawsuit if necessary) questions concerning priority of coverage, overpayments, etc. All UM coverage is triggered immediately after a claim is made, regardless of whether one UM policy is in excess of or secondary to the underlying primary policy. Mustain v. USF&G, 1996 OK 98. UM coverage is primary and therefore when demand is made by the insured, the UM carrier must pay the amount of the insured s damages up to the policy limits. This is so even if there is underlying liability coverage available from the tortfeasor. Burch v. Allstate, 19980K 129. OKC (405)235-1611 Page 6
Efforts to exclude, limit Generally, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has been or offset UM benefits quite protective of an insured s UM benefits by invalidating policy exclusions, limitations or set-offs, on the basis they violate Oklahoma s public policy. Examples of policy provisions which have been invalidated are as follows: 1 Cothren v. EMOASCO, 1976 OK 137, invalidated as contrary to public policy a clause excluding coverage where the insured was occupying a vehicle owned by the insured but not insured by the company. keel v. MFA, 1976 OK 86, invalidated the other insurance clause, thereby permitting stacking of UM policies. Biggs v. State Farm, 1977 OK 135, invalidated the actual physical contact requirement for there to be hit-and-run UM coverage. Chambers v. Walker, 1982 OK 128, prohibited a policy provision providing for an off-set or credit against the insured s own UM policy for workers compensation benefits received. Uptegraft v. Home Insurance, 1983 OK 41, invalidated a policy provision barring recovery where the insured let the statute of limitations run as against the tort feasor on the rationale that the UM statute did not permit such an exclusion. Three cases invalidated a policy provision excluding from the definition of uninsured motor vehicle the insured vehicle itself. 1 The oniy exception being Shevard v. Farmers, 1983 OK 103, which denied uninsured motorist coverage because the claimant never reached the status of an insured under the policy definition (i.e., was not a resident relative because she owned her own car). Page 7 OKC (405) 235-1611
Heavner v. Farmers, 1983 OK 51; State Farm v. Wendt, 1985 OK 75; and Russell v. American States, 813 F.2d 306 ( 10th Cir. 1987). State Farm v. Wendt, also invalidated a policy exclusion for vehicles (regularly furnished for the insured s use). The Oklahoma Supreme Court was clear that once a person is named as an insured in an uninsured motorist policy, subsequent policy exclusions to limit benefits are invalid. The Court did not limit its decision to this specific exclusionary language of the State Farm policy, but broadly stated that any attempt to tie uninsured motorist coverage to automobiles alone, rather than to people, must fail. Wendtat page 585. State Farm v. Greer, 19890K 110, invalidated a policy definition of uninsured motor vehicles which excluded government-owned vehicles. The provision was deemed to be contrary to the UM statute and void. Legislative mandate of UM coverage impermissibly restricted by policy provision that a household resident was insured while in a car or a pedestrian; hence, UM coverage also applies when household resident operating a motorcycle. Ameen v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 2005 OK CIV APP 23. Tentative settlement a) If the insured reaches a tentative settlement with tortfeasor s insurer and substitute agreement with the insured tortfeasor for the tort- feasor s policy limits, the insured must give notice to payment by UM insurer his insurer by a certified letter. The notice must include: 1) written documentation of all losses incurred and copies of all medical bills; and Page 8 OKC (405)235-1611
2) release by the insured or court order to obtain reports from the employers and medical providers. b) Insurer then has 60 days to substitute its payment to the insured for the tentative settlement amount. The UM insurer is then entitled to the insured s right of recovery to the extent of such payment and any settlement under the UM coverage. If UM insurer fails to pay the insured the amount of the tentative settlement within 60 days, the UM insurer has no right to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment for any amount paid under the UM coverage. Effect of prior denial Subrogation Complete denial of claim under UM policy estopped company from later raising as a policy defense, the fact that UM insured settled with tortfeasor and gave release which cut off UM insurer s subrogation rights. Sexton v. Continental Cas. Co., 1991 OK 84. When an insurer pays a claim to a person under UM policy, the insurer has a right of subrogation and may recover sums which claimant may recover from the tortfeasor. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has indicated that if the insured intentionally or affirmatively destroys the insurer s subrogation rights, the UM carrier may not be liable to the insured for the entire loss to be indemnified. Passive destruction of the insurer s subrogation rights by the UM insured will not forfeit UM coverage. Burch v. Allstate, 1998 OK 129. Intentionally has not been defined, but would likely be the insured violating a notice provision, ignoring a demand that the insured not let the statute of limitations toll. OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 9
? Overview does not provide an authoritative or Can iniured insured Yes. This situation can arise where the UM carrier collect less than tort-et1 waives w116 subrogation 665 m237 rights, 665 then lsbt learns that the injured feasor s limits and still insured settled with the tortfeasor for less than policy pursue a UM claim limits. If it turns out that the injured insured s damages are more than the tortfeasor s liability limits, the UM carrier in this situation would owe the full extent of the injured insured s damages (subject to an offset for monies received by injured insured from tortfeasor). Are attorney s fees recoverable on UM contract suits Uninsured status Liens What is the statute of limitations for an alleged breach of UM contract and when does the cause of action arise Generally, no. The American Rule provides each party is to pay their own attorney s fees unless provided for by contract or statute. No contract or statute provides that the injured insured plaintiff be entitled to attorney s fees when the prevailing party in a UM contract suit. However, there is an exception to the American Rule -- the oppressive litigation conduct exception; however, rarely will that exception be applicable. Barnes V. Oklahoma Farm Bureau, 2004 OK 25. Where the tortfeasor is a government entity, which has waived sovereign immunity up to certain limits (by statute), such self-insurance was considered the functional equivalent of insurance for UM purposes. Accordingly, a UM claimant who let his claim against a state agency expire, was unable to collect UM benefits because the value of his claim was less than the statutory liability limits allowed. Carlos v. State Farm, 1996 OKCIVAPP 158. UM proceeds are not subject to hospital liens, but are subject to physicians or attorneys liens. Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2006 OK 29. The statute of limitations for written contracts (as an insurance policy) is 5 years. 12 O.S. 95(1). The 5- year statute of limitations begins to run not from the date of loss, but from the breach of the uninsured motorist coverage contract. Wille v. GEICO, 2000 OK 10. OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 10
) Overview does not provide an authoritative or 3.2 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Statutory Limits (BI and PD 25/50/25 minimum limits for policies issued or renewed after 4/1/2005. 47 O.S. 7-204. For-Rent Vehicles: Owner required to have 25/50/25. Lease contract between owner and renter may provide that lessee-renter will accept responsibility for loss and lessee provides evidence of policy for minimum required amounts. 47 O.S. 8-101. 3.3 INSURABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES Public policy precludes coverage, if punitive damages are because of the insured s own (as opposed to employee s) gross negligence. Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mutual, 19800K 193. Insurer s payment on judgment can only be applied to actual damages; payments can not be applied to punitive damages. Oliver v. Producers Gas Co., 1990 OK CIV APP 28. 3.4 NO FAULT No fault insurance has not been adopted in Oklahoma. 3.5 MEDICAL PAYMENTS Stacking not required. Frank v. Allstate, 1986 OK 42. A policy provision which prohibits stacking of med. pay benefits in the event that the insured holds more than one policy covering medical expenses was held valid in Simpson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1999 OK 51. Class 1 Insureds insurer cannot subrogate. Class 2 Insureds insurer can subrogate. Aetna v. State Board, 1981 OK 153. 3.6 GUEST STATUTE No guest statute in Oklahoma. OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 11
3.7 LEGAL AND/OR FACTUAL DEFENSES Last Clear Chance Sudden Stop Unavoidable accident Seat Belt Defense Mechanical Defect Sudden Physical Illness To establish liability under doctrine it must be shown that the injured party was in a place of danger, that he was seen in such place of danger by the person charged with having injured him, and that the person who saw him thereafter fails to use ordinary care to avoid injuring him. kurn v. Casey, 1943 OK 294. May be a defense depending on circumstances. Unavoidable accident is an affirmative defense. An unavoidable accident is one which occurs without negligence on the part of either party. In action stemming from auto accident, instruction on unavoidable accident was appropriate in light of evidence of icy road conditions, reasonable speed by both drivers, and speed of other drivers, there were questions of fact as to whether both parties were driving prudently for condition and whether collision was unavoidable. A they v. Bingham, 1991 OK 82. Rose v. City of Tulsa, 2005 OK CIV APP 30. Non use of seat belt is neither a defense nor a factor for reduction of damages. It is not admissible in court. 47 O.S. 12-420. Evidence that truck s brakes had recently been repaired and that brakes had properly performed for some time prior to collision could be construed to support theory of latent defect as legally sufficient defense in action arising from collision. Moses v. Haney, 1986 OK 62. Oklahoma standard is ordinary care in maintenance of vehicle. Defense of unavoidable accident by reason of sudden unconsciousness requires that defendant prove the sudden unconsciousness and that attack was not foreseeable. Parker v. Washington, 1966 OK 263. OKC (405) 235-1611 Page 12
3.8 NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT The rule of law, existing independent of statute, charging the owner of an automobile with liability for injury or damage resulting from the negligence of an incompetent, reckless, careless, or unqualified driver to whom the vehicle is entrusted is well settled in Oklahoma. Berg v. B,yant, 1956 OK 336. To hold defendant liable for entrusting his vehicle to a careless, reckless or negligent driver, it is necessary to show defendant had knowledge the driver was incompetent, careless or reckless, or that in exercise of ordinary care defendant should have known this by reason of the facts and circumstances. Barger v. Mizel, 1967 OK 38. A cause of action was allowed to stand against an employer who knew that his employee was addicted to drinking and to driving after drinking and allowed the employee to drive employer s automobile. Shoemake v. Stich, 1975 OK 55. 47 O.S. 6-307 Any person who is the owner of any motor vehicle and knowingly permits such motor vehicle to be operated by any person who is not qualified to operate a motor vehicle shall be held civilly liable as a joint tort-feasor for any unlawful act committed by such operator. 3.9 LIABILITY COVERAGE - AUTOMOBILE Permissive user Insured gave permission to use car to son for purpose of finding a job and with express instructions not to allow anyone else to drive the car. Son gave permission for a friend to drive the car, and the friend caused an automobile collision. Insured s coverage was 25/50/25 with State Farm. Driver of other car sued and prevailed in his lawsuit. Driver won summary judgment against State Farm in the garnishment proceeding. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the relevant factor in the statutory omnibus provision is the use of the insured OKC (405)235-1611 Page 13
vehicle with express/implied permission. Once express or implied permission to use an insured vehicle is granted, the omnibus coverage is fixed up to the statutory minimum compulsory insurance limits. O Neill v. Long (State Farm, garnishee), 2002 OK 63. Tapp v. Perciful, 2005 OK 49. The strong public policy in favor of protecting the rights of injured third parties over the rights of insurers precludes the insured from enforcing contractual provisions voiding the policy based on the insured s failure to give the insurer notice of the lawsuit, and due process considerations preclude the trial court from granting judgment in favor of an injured motorist in garnishment actions before the insurer has had an opportunity to present a defense. Baidridge V. Kirkpatrick, 2003 OK CIV APP 9. Policy exclusions Household/Family Exclusion - Held to be invalid in a case involving a 5 year old killed when his father fell asleep while driving. Court held exclusion invalid insofar as the exclusion attempted to defeat statutory mandate of minimum amount (10/20) of liability coverage available for persons in position of the minor. Nation v. State Farm, 19940K 54. See Rush v. Brown, 1999 OK CIV APP 86 (distinguishes Nation v. State Farm) A named insured, who was killed while riding as a passenger of a car driven by another named insured, was not an innocent victim entitled to protection under compulsory liability statutes, where both parties to the insurance policy waived protection under statute. 47 05 7-601. Rush v. Brown~ 1999 OK CIV APP 86. See Gordon v. Gordon, 2002 OK 5 (limits Nation v. State Farm). Nation does not stand for the proposition that liability coverages in automobile insurance policies may be stacked. Nation is limited to its facts insofar as it holds 10K from each of the three policies involved there should Page 14 OKC (405) 235-1611
be paid to the plaintiff. Hart/me v. Hartline, 2001 OK 15, held that the household and named insured/insured exclusions are invalid only when they operate to deny all coverage to an injured resident family member. Compliance with this rule imposes on the insurer a duty to provide in its policy at least the minimum amount of coverage mandated by the state s compulsory liability laws in the form of liability or UM coverage. A named driver exclusion which is based on the poor driving record of the excluded individual is consistent with compulsory liability insurance laws, and the exclusion bars coverage for negligent entrustment because otherwise the exclusion would be nullified. Pierce v. OK Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 1995 OK 78. Discovery of Auto State Court - Plaintiff may obtain discovery of any liability Liability Insurance insurance agreement issued in accordance with the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Compulsory Liability Insurance Law, including policies having limits in excess of those required. Tuller v. Shallcross, 1994 OK 133, has been extended by a recent statutory amendment to 12 O.S. 3226 to include any insurance agreement which may be used to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment. Such is being challenged via Writ of Prohibition to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in May 2005. Federal Court - Defendant is required to disclose any insurance agreement which may be available to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered. 3.10 SALVAGE VEHICLES Salvage vehicle is defined as any vehicle, 10 model years old or less, which has been damaged to the extent that repair cost exceeds 60% of its fair market value. 47 O.S. 1 105(A)(1). Page 15 OKC (405) 235-1611
When paying a total loss of any vehicle, including flooddamaged or recovered-theft vehicles, insurer must secure title and license plate and return them to the Oklahoma Tax Commission within 30 days of receipt of the certificate. 47 O.S. 1111(B). If an insurance company pays a claim for a loss which is less than a total loss but the cost of repairing the vehicle for safe operation on the highway exceeds sixty percent (60%) of the fair market value of the vehicle, or if any vehicle not insured is damaged to the extent that the cost of repair for safe operation on the highway exceeds sixty percent (60%) of the fair market value of the vehicle, any holder of the certificate of title for the vehicle shall return the certificate of title to the Oklahoma Tax Commission or a motor license agent within thirty (30) days from receipt of payment for the loss. The Commission will then issue a salvage title for the vehicle. 47 O.S. 1111(C)(1) and (2). OKC (405)235-1611 Page 16