Supreme Court of Oklahoma

The Court conducted de novo review of the disciplinary record and found that Perez violated the rule prohibiting misrepresentation in obtaining certification by falsely swearing that she was unable to work or complete continuing education throughout the year.

The court held that Hudson's policy provided primary automobile liability coverage and that General Star's policy provided excess coverage, making Hudson responsible for the covered payments after the underlying coverage was exhausted.

The Court held that the insured's tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims against the engineering company were legally unavailable because the company acted as the insurer's representative while inspecting the insured's property.

The court held that the Providers were immune from ordinary-negligence liability under Oklahoma's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability Act because their pandemic-related policies impacted Blake's treatment, leaving only gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct for the jury.

The court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligence claim but upheld dismissal of their tortious-interference claim. The plaintiffs had standing because they alleged direct financial injury to their business, while tortious interference necessarily involves bad faith and therefore falls outside the…

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the trial court abused its discretion by reducing the plaintiff’s attorney‑fee request from $8,775.37 to $2,500.00 without applying the Burk factors or showing a rational relationship to the evidence, and it reset the award at $7,104.50 as costs against OG&E.

The court affirmed the $2.2 million judgment against the insurers for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the evidence permitted the jury to find that the insurers unreasonably failed to investigate, communicate with the insured, and pursue a reasonable opportunity to settle a catastrophic…

The court held that individual shareholders of the corporation operating the nursing facility were not "owners" subject to direct liability under the Nursing Home Care Act merely because they could profit or lose from the facility's financial success.

The court held that the attorney-fee provision in § 110(D) authorizes discretionary equitable fee awards only between the divorced spouses who were the original parties to the divorce case. It does not authorize fees against grandparents who intervened in a post-divorce child-custody modification proceeding.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that § 155(14) of the Governmental Tort Claims Act — which bars tort claims against the state or its political subdivisions for on-the-job injuries or death covered by workers' compensation while leaving other claimants free to sue — violates neither the equal protection guarantees…

The court assumed original jurisdiction and issued a writ prohibiting enforcement of an order excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. It adopted the Daubert and Kumho standards for civil expert testimony, held that the trial court had improperly required baseline pulmonary data without record support, and directed…

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held on certiorari that a joint operating agreement (A.A.P.L. Form 610, 1956) whose terms designate one party as operator of the unit area and consistently use "operator" in the singular permits only a single operator for the entire Corporation Commission-designated spacing and drilling…

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to submit Welton's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim to the jury. Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in Welton's favor, Craig's persistent efforts to contact and monitor her supported findings of extreme and outrageous conduct and severe…

The court held that the statute governing Oklahoma's executive cabinet permits a Governor to establish the cabinet within forty-five days of assuming office but does not permit the Governor to alter it afterward.

The court held that the Workers' Compensation Court lacked jurisdiction to require the Multiple Injury Trust Fund to accrue permanent-total-disability payments before the employer finished paying permanent-partial-disability benefits or to require a lump-sum payment of those amounts.

The court held that Oklahoma's discovery rule applies to libel claims when the alleged publication was concealed or secretive, and that disputed discovery facts ordinarily present a jury question.

The court affirmed the jury’s verdict that the insurer breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, upheld submission of punitive damages without the statutory cap, and upheld the $1.5 million punitive award.

The court held that Oklahoma's wrongful-death statute permits a representative to sue for the death of a nonviable fetus that was born alive, regardless of the child's ability to survive outside the womb.

The court vacated the intermediate appellate decision and reinstated summary judgment for the lawyers in the former clients’ legal-malpractice action. It held that the applicable law concerning the statutory notice requirement was unsettled when the lawyers made their litigation choices, and the summary-judgment…

The court held that federal law did not preempt the widow's state-law claim that the railroad crossing had inadequate warning devices because federally funded warning devices had not yet been installed and made operational when the accident occurred.

The court held that the plaintiff's petition adequately stated claims for fraudulent inducement to marry and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that the paternity-presumption statute and preclusion doctrines did not require dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted a writ of prohibition halting a district court defamation, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy action brought by two trial lawyers against Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and five of its leaders. Applying the Conley v.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a third party may not predicate negligence per se on 63 O.S.1991 § 1-519, because the statute's duty runs only to the infected person's sexual partners and imposes no obligation to warn third persons.

The Supreme Court held that summary judgment was improper because Brown’s status as a licensee or invitee and the open‑and‑obvious nature of the ramp defect are genuine issues of fact.

The court held that a recorded foreclosure decree does not establish priority for a later deficiency lien when the deficiency order itself was never recorded. Because Neil recorded its deficiency order and Wingrod did not, Neil held the superior judgment lien, and a nunc pro tunc order could not retroactively perfect…

The court answered three certified questions concerning an insurer's duty to defend and an insured's failure to provide post-denial information. It held that inadequate notice is not independently actionable, but may operate as a contractual defense that completely bars or proportionally reduces recovery depending on…

The court held that Oklahoma may apply the reasonable expectations doctrine when interpreting insurance contracts. The doctrine may resolve ambiguous policy language and may override exclusions that are masked by technical or obscure language or hidden in policy provisions, but it does not permit courts to rewrite…

The court held that a release naming only the original tortfeasors and containing broad boilerplate language did not discharge the treating physician and clinic from a later malpractice claim.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, on certiorari, held that the in-marriage enhancement of a spouse's separate retirement fund is divisible marital property only to the extent attributable to employer participatory payments or either spouse's monetary contributions, skill, or effort; increases produced by passive…

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a contractor who arbitrated contract disputes with the project owner and recovered partial damages was not barred by claim or issue preclusion from later suing the architectural firm and its employee for negligence and fraud, because they were not parties to the arbitration, the…

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Bar Association proved by clear and convincing evidence that attorney Joe R. Farrant converted client funds intended for expenses and knowingly misrepresented the facts to the Bar Association, and imposed a one‑year suspension with a one‑year probationary period and costs.

The court held that Oklahoma properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the three Texas defendants because their purposeful Oklahoma contacts, viewed in their totality, included negotiating and entering a services contract with an Oklahoma resident and seeking services from Oklahoma businesses.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the trial court erred in dismissing the Dykes' malpractice action against St. Francis Hospital and the defendant physicians for failure to state a claim, because the judgment roll of Judy Dyke's workers' compensation claim was not before the district court and the defendants'…

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the four‑month suspension of attorney Robert L. Johnston, finding the record sufficient for de novo review and concluding that his misconduct—including a false statement to a tribunal, mishandling of client funds, and violations of competence, diligence, and communication…

The court answered affirmatively that an at-will employee may pursue an Oklahoma public-policy tort claim based on racially discriminatory or retaliatory discharge even when the same conduct allegedly violates federal and state discrimination statutes.

The court upheld the Unclaimed Pooled Monies Act by construing it narrowly to conform to controlling federal priority rules governing competing state claims to unclaimed intangible property.

The court held that the appellate attorney-fee statute applies broadly to appeals from Workers’ Compensation Court orders, including workers’ compensation appeals, and expressly rejected the contrary interpretation.

The court affirmed the summary judgment insofar as the record disclosed no actionable pre-expulsion or expulsion-related conduct. It held that the plaintiffs failed to preserve their prematurity argument, identify a material fact dispute, or show error in the trial court's treatment of their alternative liability…

The court affirmed the judgment against Farmers for bad-faith handling of the Buzzards' underinsured-motorist claim, holding that Farmers had no reasonable basis to delay payment until the City's liability limits were exhausted and was estopped from relying on the loss of subrogation rights after inducing the…

The court held that the comprehensive general liability policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the cost of repairing or replacing the subcontractor’s defective roofing work and materials.