Reinsurance Law Blog
The Reinsurance law Blog is published by Jody Nathan of Tulsa, OK law firm Stauffer Graves Nathan. Topics covered include contract liabilty, disability benefits, mortgages, vehicles and new cases and laws.
Channels
- Practice Area
- Administrative Law
- Admiralty & Maritime Law
- Advertising Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- AmLaw 200 Blogs
- Antitrust Law
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Rights & Privacy Law
- Consumer Law
- Corporate & Commercial Litigation
- Criminal Law
- Divorce & Family Law
- Education Law
- Election Law & Political Commentary
- Electronic Discovery
- Employment & Labor Law
- Environmental Law
- General Counsel Blogs
- Immigration Law
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- International Law
- Judiciary Law
- Media, Entertainment & Sports Law
- Law Firm Management & Legal Marketing
- Personal Injury & Medical Law
- Probate & Estate Planning
- Real Estate & Construction Law
- Tax & Financial Law
- Technology
- Whistleblower Law
- Workers' Compensation
- Law School
Recent Articles
Withdrawal of Motion to reconsider results in untimely appeal
Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. involved a claim by surviving family members that the drug Paxil caused or contributed to a suicide. Over the course of the proceedings, several partial judgments were granted, with the end result being that all claims were eventually dismissed. A...
Trial court order remanding to plan administrator not immediately appealable
In Miller vs. Monumental Life Ins. Co. the trial court ordered (after remand from a prior appeal) that the ERISA based case be sent back to the plan administrator so the record could be completed. The plaintiff, Miller, appealed from this order, claiming it was improper on various...
Oklahoma's Tort Claims Act does not prohibit action against City for loss covered by insurance
In Salazar Roofing & Construction, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2010 OK 34, a city dump truck driver backed up into Salazar’s dump truck, causing damages. The City admitted that the city driver was in the course and scope of his employment and admitted liability, but claimed it was...
UM exclusion violates public policy
In Morris v. America First Insurance Company, 2010 OK 35, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in answering a question certified from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, found that a UM exclusion violated Oklahoma public policy. Specifically, the court found that an...
Confession of liability results in no coverage
Alea London Ltd. v. Canal Club, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 33 is an odd case. It starts out as a liquor liability exclusion case and ends up being an assumption of liability case. Canal Club was the insured, and Alea the insurer. Canal Club was sued when an intoxicated patron (Valle) left...
Apparent Authority to reject UM?
In Traders Insurance v. Johnson, the question was whether the daughter, not a named insured, had authority to reject UM (uninsured motorist) coverage on a policy issued to her parents. The answer is “maybe.” Oklahoma’s UM statute limits the right to reject UM to named insureds...
Business pursuits exclusion
A homeowner’s policy did not cover a claim for the wrongful death of a high school girl who was mauled by a tiger. In Safeco v. Hilderbrand, the insureds ran an animal sanctuary for exotic animals no longer wanted by zoos and circuses. While it was a non profit organization, the...
Workers comp carrier, Employer may sue for certain death benefits
In McBride v. NES Rentals, an employee was killed on the job in a multi vehicle accident. The employee's family received workers comp death benefits, then sued the various tortfeasors. The employer and the workers comp carrier sought to intervene. The trial court denied the...
Auto policy reformed regarding Family Exclusion
In Allstate v. Moser, Moser was injured in a one car accident. Moser was a passenger, and her brother was driving. Allstate’s policy was issued in Colorado to Moser’s parents . It had $100,000 limits and contained a family exclusion. There was an accident in...
ERISA preemption may not apply to Indian tribes
The Tenth Circuit has determined that ERISA’s exception for governmental plans applies to plans sponsored by Indian tribes, so long as those plans meet the requirements of the definition. This means that ERISA preemption does not apply to insurance plans involving Indian...

