JAI Hospitality v Western World Insurance AK 2025

Here’s an analysis of JAI HOSPITALITY v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE CO. (2025 OK 13). You can read the text of the opinion by clicking here.

Case Overview

Jai Hospitality, LLC owned a motel and had an insurance policy with Western World Insurance Co. The policy was set to expire on June 1, 2020. Days before expiration, Western World’s agent sent a renewal offer—with a premium increase—to Jai’s insurance agent (J. Charles), not directly to Jai. Jai never received direct notice of this offer. A fire occurred on June 26, 2020, and Jai filed a claim, but Western World denied coverage, arguing the policy had expired.

Jai sued, claiming Western World was required—by both the policy and Oklahoma law—to send direct written notice of the renewal (and premium increase) to Jai, and that failing to do so meant the policy was still in effect when the fire happened.

Key Legal Issues

Was Western World required to send the renewal offer (with premium increase) directly to Jai, the "first named insured"?
Did sending the offer only to Jai’s insurance agent (J. Charles) or the surplus lines broker (All Risks) count as proper notice under Oklahoma law and the contract?
If proper notice wasn’t given, did the policy remain in effect at the time of the fire?

What the Lower Courts Did

Trial Court sided with Western World, ruling that sending the renewal offer to Jai’s agent was enough, and that the policy expired June 1, 2020.
Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that decision.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. Direct Notice Requirement

The Supreme Court held that both the policy and Oklahoma statute (36 O.S. § 3639(E)) required Western World to send written notice of any renewal with a premium increase directly to Jai, at the address listed in the policy—not just to the agent or broker.

2. Notice to Agent ≠ Notice to Insured

The Court rejected Western World’s argument that notice to Jai’s agent or surplus lines broker was legally sufficient. The plain language of the policy and statute requires direct notice to the insured, and the insurer can’t bypass this by just informing the agent.

3. Effect of Failing to Give Proper Notice

Because Western World failed to give proper notice:

By the terms of the policy and statute, the existing policy remained in effect until either (a) 45 days after proper notice was finally given, or (b) Jai obtained replacement coverage.
Since Jai only got replacement coverage in July 2020 (after the fire), the policy was still in effect when the fire occurred.

4. Bad Faith Claim

Because the policy was in effect, Jai’s claim for property damage and for Western World’s alleged bad faith denial could proceed.

Final Result

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.
Ruled that Western World should have notified Jai directly of the renewal/premium increase.
Since it didn’t, coverage was still in effect at the time of the loss.
Sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings (meaning Jai can pursue its claim and bad faith allegation).

Why This Matters

This case sets a strong precedent in Oklahoma:
Insurers must provide direct written notice to the insured (not just their agent or broker) when renewing a policy with a premium increase. If they don’t, the old policy stays in effect—even if the insured never responds to the agent’s communications.

For policyholders:
If you’re the “first named insured” on a policy, you have the right to get direct notice of changes or nonrenewal. If you don’t, your coverage may continue even if the insurer claims it’s lapsed.

For insurers:
The procedural step of mailing notices to the correct address is not just a formality—it’s the law, and skipping it can keep policies alive longer than intended.

Here’s a clear, plain-English analysis of JAI HOSPITALITY v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE CO. (2025 OK 13) based on the full text of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion: