Teenage Son of Drugstore Owner Not an "Insured" under Store's Insurance Policy; Policy's Uninsured Motorist Coverage Not Available When Son Hurt in ATV Accident
美国经济保险公司诉Bogdahn案中，俄克拉荷马州最高法院裁定，药店老板的儿子在ATV事故中受伤，不能作为药店保险单下的“被保险人”获得未投保驾驶人保险赔偿。
American Economy Insurance Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 Okla. LEXIS 11 (Oklahoma Supreme Court--February 10, 2004) The Hillcrest Pharmacy has been fixture in Woodward, Oklahoma since the 1960s. In 1990, it was sold to the Bogdahn family. The drugstore was under policy from American Economy Insurance Company. It provided comprehensive coverage to the Pharmacy as named insured, including motorist (UM) coverage in the event of an On the policy, the Pharmacy was not only listed as the named but was also identified as corporation. The policy stated that throughout this policy the words 'you' and 'your' refer to the Named Insured. The UM endorsement to the policy specifically stated We will pay, in accordance with Title 36, Oklahoma Statutes, all sums the insured is legally entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The damages must result from bodily injury sustained by the insured caused by an accident. B. Who Is an Insured 1. You. 2. If you are an individual, any family member. 3. Anyone else occupying covered auto ... 4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of bodily injury sustained by another See id. at *6-*7. The court also noted that The policy defines family member as a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is resident of your household, including ward or foster child. In 2000, the minor son of the Pharmacy owners was badly hurt when he fell from the back of an all-terrain vehicle being driven by another boy. The ATV owned by parents of the other child was not insured. As result, the Bogdahns as owners of the pharmacy, sought to collect under the drugstore policy's UM coverage. American Economy filed declaratory judgment action in federal court, seeking ruling on the matter. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that the son was not an under the UM endorsement in the drugstore policy. The Bogdahns appealed. The federal appeals court for the Tenth Circuit (geographically encompassing the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states) sought ruling on the legal issues from the Oklahoma Supreme Court by certifying to the Court the question of whether the son was person under the UM coverage. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rephrased the question into two separate questions as follows: 1. Is the definition of an in the UM endorsement of the American Economy policy issued to Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc. …