Did the Supreme Court err in dismissing the case for lack of an appealable order and denying the right to appeal despite alleged fraud and jurisdictional issues?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Supreme Court err when they dismissed my case for lack of an appealable Order (this is an interlocutory appeal) because they discerned that the parents, Josh and Brittany Winningham had claims, after | had fully briefed that they were not parties to the insurance contract for the accident vehicle and that their daughter had a solely owned insurance contract and that the parents actually committed a fraud? And according to my brief | cited: In Hoar v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 968 P.2d 1219 (OK 1998) and Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Little Jim, 927 F.2d 1132 (10th Cir. 1991). “... Hoar held that as the plaintiffs in that case were neither parties to the insurance contract, nor third party beneficiaries of the insurance contract, “the remedy of reformation is not available to them.” Hoar at 1223... In Advisory Comm Notes — re: Rule 17(a) “the rule should be applied only to cases in which substitution of the real party in interest is necessary to avoid injustice.” 2. Did they further err by not allowing a COA to review this appeal but sua sponte dismissed it after two and half months after they reviewed my Resp to O Sh Cause? 3. Did they further err by denying my right to appeal because | have a “right” under : Rule 1.60, 12 O.S. (d) discharge, vacate or modify or refuse to discharge, vacate or modify a provisional remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party (12 O.S. SS 952 (b)(2) and 12 O.S. SS 993(A)(3) the statutes | plead. 4, Did they err when after the District Court judge *refused to vacate the Dismissal Order of plaintiff Madelyn based on fraud in obtaining the judgment where she denied my Mot to V and cited an improper and contrary to law order (Appen C PIE #2) Order — 12 O.S. 1031.1 to justify this denial, quoting that law which supports 30 days to respond and denied it as “untimely”, but | pleaded the law — based on fraud, and cited the statute supporting 12 O.S. 1031.4 supporting a two year timing to challenge and offered the evidence. In my Am Mot to Rec — Mot to Vacate — | submitted to J. Greenough and ignored by her and the Supreme Court in my (Appen 1) | supplied 8 exhibits proving Madelyn had her soley owned insurance policy and her parents had their own policy. She did not acknowledge any of this. 5. Did the Sup Court err in ignoring this Order, based on fraud and did not dismissed?