Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Plaintiff Marlene Harris purchased a car from Defendant David Stanley Chevrolet. Her purchase agreement contained an arbitration provision that applied to any "controversy, claim or dispute between the Purchaser and the Dealer arising out of, or related to this sale or transaction, including but not limited to, any and all issues or disputes arising as a result of this sale or transaction whether said issues arise prior to, during or subsequent to the sale or attempted sale of a vehicle." A few days after executing the purchase agreement, Plaintiff entered into a GAP insurance contract sold to her by an employee of the dealership (acting as an agent of the insurance company). In 2009, the car was a total loss. The GAP insurance company refused to pay the total difference between the insurance proceeds and the amount owed on the car, and Plaintiff sued to compel the GAP coverage. Plaintiff maintained that the purchase of the vehicle and the purchase of the policy were separate transactions, and that the arbitration clause of the purchase contract was inapplicable to the underpayment of coverage (GAP coverage). She argued no claim was brought against the GAP insurance company which was related to the sale or financing of the vehicle, conceding the arbitration clause would have applied to claims related to the sale or financing issues. After reviewing the motions of the parties, the trial court denied Defendant's Motion to Compel arbitration without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the two contracts involved two separate subjects, executed on different dates, and the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement did not mention or reference GAP insurance or any relationship between the two contracts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the evidentiary hearing and ruling that the arbitration clause did not apply as a matter of law.View "Harris v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appearance of impartiality/conflict of interest in disciplinary proceedings before the Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Board (the Board) required invalidation of the proceedings. In December of 2005, Appellee real estate appraiser Beverly Bowen appraised a parcel of real property for her client BancFirst (Bank). By July of 2007, after having sat vacant for 19 months, the property sold at a sheriff's sale which resulted in a loss to the private mortgage insurer (insurer). The insurer filed a grievance against the appraiser with the Board alleging possible appraisal fraud. The insurer hired another local appraiser, JoElla Jones (Jones/review appraiser), to reappraise the property nineteen months after Bowen's initial appraisal. Apparently, the property remained unoccupied the entire time, and it may have been vandalized. Jones reviewed Bowen's work. She valued the property at $197,000.00 or $58,000 below Bowen's appraisal. While the dispute between the bank and the insurer regarding the property's value was ongoing, the bank discovered that Jones had a personal and direct history with Bowen: the appraisers had known one another for more than 26 years. Learning this information prompted the bank to write a letter to the insurer notifying them of the unmistakable conflict of interest and alleging that if a mistake in an appraisal occurred, it was made by the review appraiser. Soon thereafter, the Board brought disciplinary proceedings against Bowen. Notwithstanding the conflict of interest, a probable cause committee (committee) of the Board held a hearing. The Board adopted the committee's findings of fact and conclusions of law but modified the disciplinary recommendation. The trial court held another hearing reversing the Board's discipline, finding that the appearance of impropriety was so apparent on the face of the record that reversible legal error occurred. The Board appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that under the fact of this case, the disciplinary proceedings required invalidating proceedings because of the appearance of impartiality. The Court affirmed the trial court. View "Bowen v. Oklahoma Real Estate Appraisal Bd." on Justia Law

J.P. Fox is co-owner and general manager of Lumber 2, which is a retail home and ranch supply store. Fox and some company employees attended the Handy Hardware Show, a trade show in Houston, Texas, in 2003. They stopped at the "Hobart" booth of Defendant Illinois Tool Works (ITW) where they found Scott Massie, a sales representative of ITW. Massie showed Fox some new Hobart Champion 10,000 welder/generators ("Champ 10,000's) in which Fox had no interest because of the price. Massie asked if he would be interested in reconditioned units and handed him a list of items on a yellow legal pad. The list showed that ITW/ Hobart had eleven reconditioned Champ 10,000's for sale. The parties agreed orally that Fox would buy them for $1600.00 each. Upon returning to Oklahoma City, however, Fox received a telephone call from Massie who told him he could not deliver the Champ 10,000s to him because Hobart would not agree to sell them to Fox and Lumber 2. Massie told him the sales manager at Hobart refused to complete the sale because it would "screw up the whole territory" for its existing customers in the area. Thereafter, ITW/Hobart sold the welders to Atwood's, a much larger competitor of Lumber 2 which then sold them for $1800.00 each. Fox and Lumber 2 sued ITW for breach of contract, fraud, and for violations of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act (OARA) and Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA). A jury verdict was returned in favor of Lumber 2, and money damages were awarded on its claims for breach of contract and for violations of the OARA and the OCPA. The trial court denied ITW's motion for new trial. ITW appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed the judgment on Lumber 2's breach of contract claim but reversed it on the award of damages for the OARA and OCPA claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court was asked to consider an issue of first impression whether Lumber 2, as a retailer and purchaser of merchandise intended for resale in its business, was a "consumer" for purposes of the Act. The Court held that Lumber 2 was not a consumer under the OCPA, and it reversed the trial court on that issue alone. The Court affirmed the trial court on all other issues. View "Lumber 2, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc." on Justia Law