Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer Protection Federation of Oklahoma, Inc. sought writs of prohibition and mandamus to disqualify a hearing officer in an administrative proceeding conducted by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), to restart the proceeding with a new hearing officer, and to prohibit ex parte communications between the hearing officer and the OWRB and other agencies. The proceedings in question concern the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer Maximum Annual Yield (MAY) determination, made by OWRB on March 13, 2012. Upon review of the OWRB record, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner was entitled to a fair and impartial proceeding. While the Court did not find the hearing officer to be biased and would not order her disqualification, "in the interest of fairness and in order to remedy any appearance of impropriety," the Court issued a writ of mandamus to compel the hearing officer to notify the parties to the administrative proceeding of any and all ex parte communications that occurred between her and federal agencies and to include those communications in the record, so that the parties may have an opportunity to respond. The Court concluded that Petitioner satisfied the necessary requirements for a writ of mandamus, and therefore issued a writ compelling the hearing officer to provide notice of her ex parte communications to all parties, to disclose the contents of those communications to the parties, and incorporate those communications and responses to them into the record. View "Arbuckle Simpson Aquifier Protection Federation of Okla. v. Okla. Water Res. Bd." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned a dispute over the title to real property along the Red River in Tillman County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff-Appellee, Chad H. Akin asserted title by adverse possession, even though he also insisted that he owned the property through a deed given to him by his father Hugh in 1975. Defendants-Appellees, Don S. Castleberry, Sam D. Castleberry, Terry G. Castleberry, denied Akin's assertion of adverse possession and, instead, insisted that they owned the property through a deed obtained from their aunt in 1986. The trial court determined that Akin neglected to prove title by adverse possession and Akin appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the trial court because title by adverse possession was not proven under the facts presented.View "Akin v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

Oklahoma Department of Corrections inmate Sonny Lauren Harmon brought an action against three employees of the John Lilley Correctional Center, Paul Cradduck, Warden Glynn Booher, and Alice Turner, following the seizure and alleged conversion of a gold wedding ring. The District Court of Oklahoma County entered summary judgment on behalf of each defendant. Harmon appealed the decision. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether summary judgment was supported by the record. After reviewing the record, the Court found that the settled-law-of-the-case-doctrine precluded reconsideration of Harmon's compliance with administrative exhaustion requirements, and it was error to hold otherwise. In addition, the existence of a factual dispute mandated the Court's reversal of summary judgment in favor of defendant Paul Cradduck on Harmon's conversion claim. However, the Court concluded the district court properly awarded summary judgment to each of the defendants for any claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Further, any claims based on the purported tortious conduct of Booher and Turner were properly disposed of by the trial judge and COCA.View "Harmon v. Cradduck" on Justia Law

Zaloudek Grain Company held a workers' compensation policy with CompSource Oklahoma for approximately ten years prior to 2011. Zaloudek was required each year to provide payroll audit information to CompSource. The audit information was used to determine the proper premium for each year. CompSource sent a notice in late 2010 to Zaloudek requesting audit information. In January, 2011, Zaloudek's policy was renewed for all of 2011 through January 1, 2012. On January 18, 2011, CompSource sent another letter requesting Zaloudek provide the necessary payroll audit information, but Zaloudek was unresponsive. Subsequently, CompSource sent Zaloudek a notification to inform the company that the process of canceling its policy would begin if CompSource did not receive the audit information. The audit information was not provided; CompSource ultimately canceled the policy when Zaloudek ignored several subsequent requests. CompSource issued a refund for payments made under the policy. Later that summer, two teenage workers were seriously injured in the grain auger at Zaloudek's facility. CompSource did not accept the company's new insurance application because it was incomplete and was not signed by an owner of Zaloudek. Zaloudek sued a few weeks following the rejection of its application, asking for a judgment against CompSource for breach of contract and bad faith and further requested declaratory relief in the form of an order requiring CompSource to provide workers' compensation coverage. Zaloudek filed a motion for summary judgment claiming CompSource lacked legal justification for terminating its policy and requested orders to establish there was no lapse in coverage and requiring CompSource to provide coverage for its two injured employees. Zaloudek further requested a finding that CompSource was in breach of contract. CompSource moved for summary judgment, arguing Zaloudek was not covered at the time of the incident and its policy was properly canceled. Zaloudek filed a counter-motion for summary judgment asserting CompSource should be estopped from denying coverage because it retained premiums and acted in a manner toward Zaloudek consistent with continued coverage. The trial court issued an order dismissing Zaloudek's bad faith claim but left pending its claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. CompSource appealed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that CompSource was authorized to cancel a policy for an insured's failure to participate in the audit. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the other contract issues raised.View "Zaloudek Grain Co. v. CompSource Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether the parties' dispute over a provision in their lease for a shopping center store had to be resolved under the arbitration provision in the lease or whether it could have been resolved by a proceeding in district court. The disputed provision provided that landlord KWD River City Investments, L.P. would not alter the exterior of the shopping center without the consent of tenant Ross Dress for Less. KWD admitted that it allowed another tenant to alter the shopping center's exterior at that tenant's store location without Ross' consent. However, KWD maintained that Ross unreasonably withheld its consent in violation of the consent provision. KWD contended that the unreasonableness of Ross' refusal to consent was demonstrated by Ross conditioning its consent upon KWD making exterior alterations to benefit Ross. KWD then filed declaratory judgment action in district court to resolve the dispute. Ross filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. KWD petitioned the Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Upon review, the Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "KWD River City Investments, LP v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc." on Justia Law

W.R. Allison Enterprises, Inc. was a small business operated by a sole owner. Allison hired an employee in early 2009 and secured workers' compensation and employers' liability insurance from CompSource. Allison prepaid the estimated annual premium. The employee only worked for Allison for approximately one month. Allison asked its insurance agent to cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy. CompSource acknowledged the cancellation request and advised that it would issue a ten-day notice of cancellation on a short rate basis in conformance with the insurance policy. CompSource prepared a final audit report, calculating the gross premium, short rate cancellation penalty, and a catastrophe premium. CompSource subtracted the audit amount from the estimated prepaid annual premium and refunded the remainder as the unearned premium calculated on a short rate basis. Allison took the position that the short rate penalty charge conflicted with 85 O.S.2001, section 67.1 which expressly required the insurance company to refund a pro rata share of the prepaid premium if it canceled a policy and that the policy's short rate penalty provision was changed, by operation of law, to comply with section 67.1. Allison filed suit against CompSource on behalf of itself and other similarly situated employers to recover the short rate penalties charged by CompSource, alleging CompSource's refusal to return the short rate penalty charge constituted a breach of the insurance policy as impliedly amended by law. The trial court overruled CompSource's counter motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and certified an interlocutory order that decided that when an insured employer requests that a workers' compensation insurance policy be canceled, the insurer must refund the prepaid premium on a pro rata basis pursuant to 85 O.S.2001, 67.1. The insurer filed a petition for certiorari review arguing that the pro rata refund provisions in the statute apply only when the insurer initiates the cancellation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the statute was ambiguous as to insured-initiated cancellations of workers' compensation insurance policies; (2) the state insurance department has applied the statute only to insurer-initiated cancellations; and (3) plaintiff respondent did not establish any cogent reason why the Court should not defer to the department's longstanding application. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed. Section 67.1 did not require CompSource to make a pro rata refund of unearned prepaid premium to Allison. View "W.R. Allison Enterprises, Inc. v. CompSource of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The plaintiff-appellant sued the defendant-appellee for professional negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The appellant was a party to a divorce and child custody litigation. The appellee, a court-appointed psychologist, was to serve as an expert to conduct an evaluation of the parties and of their children. The appellant alleged that he paid the appellee for the evaluation and after several months, as a result of the inaction of the appellee, her report had not been provided as ordered. The appellant settled the divorce proceedings in a manner he claimed was injurious to him and his son. The trial court granted the appellee's motion to dismiss. The motion urged that as a court-appointed witness, the appellee was immune to liability in damages. Though after its review, the Supreme Court found that as a court-appointed expert, appellee was indeed immune to liability in damages, "her duty was to the court." However, because the appellant claimed that the appellee failed to provide any services whatsoever for the amount paid, the Court treated those allegations as true: "[a]n expert would not be entitled to claim a fee for a court-ordered service that was not provided. This does not mean the appellant must be satisfied with the fees, but the appellant has a right to have the court decide if the fees were earned, and whether there was a valid legal defense to the assertions of the appellant that the appellee neither completed the required report, nor testified." The appellant admitted that the underlying child custody was settled, so the trial court should have also considered the impact the settlement had on the appellee's opportunity to complete the report or to testify. Accordingly, the trial court's granting the appellee's motion to dismiss was reversed and remanded for further consideration. View "Simonson v. Schaefer" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Claimant Nancy Bertrand injured her right foot when she slipped on a wet floor while employed as a child care worker for Respondent Laura Dester Center (Employer). She sought certiorari review of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) which sustained the Workers' Compensation Court's (WCC) denial of her request for travel costs to and from a vocational rehabilitation facility. Claimant contended that her allowance for travel expenses was effectively eliminated under the new Workers' Compensation Code, enacted August 26, 2011, which set a minimum for reimbursement of twenty miles round-trip. Claimant's total round-trip mileage was fourteen miles for which she was previously paid prior to the effective date of the Code. The trial court ordered the new law was procedural and could be applied retroactively. But after its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the WCC ordered vocational rehabilitation before August 26, 2011, and the treatment facility was outside the city limits of Claimant's hometown. As such, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Bertrand v. Laura Dester Center" on Justia Law

Petitioner, Miami Business Services LLC (Miami), and Real Parties in Interest were involved in a joint venture. The law firm of Phillips Murrah, P.C. (Phillips) served as general counsel for Miami as well as Real Parties in Interest and their joint venture. Over the course of that joint venture, Jennifer Fogg, one of the defendants, acted as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Miami and acted as the principal in the real party in interest business entities. While COO of Miami, Fogg sought counsel from Phillips regarding issues affecting Miami's operations and for work undertaken by Real Parties in Interest and the joint venture. Miami terminated Fogg from her role as its COO in October, 2010. Subsequent to Fogg's termination, Miami brought suit against Real Parties in Interest, including Fogg, for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. Phillips entered its appearance in the suit on behalf of the Real Parties in Interest. Miami then filed a motion to disqualify Phillips, claiming that Phillips had a conflict of interest which violated Rules 1.7 and 1.9 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, stemming from Phillips' involvement with both Miami and Real Party in Interest Asset Group, Inc. The trial judge denied Miami's motion and Miami appealed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court recast Miami's appeal as an application for original jurisdiction and petition for mandamus. In granting the petition, the Court held that denial of a motion to disqualify was immediately appealable as a final order affecting the substantial rights of a party pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 953 and that the addition of Comment 3 to Rule 1.9 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct did not alter the requirement for an evidentiary hearing on motions to disqualify counsel for conflicts of interest based upon possession of confidential information. View "Miami Business Services, LLC v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Brian C. Howard, M.D. received a knee replacement manufactured by Defendant Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc. The implant failed and had to be removed allegedly because it did not bond to Howard's bone. Howard asserted that the implant was unsuccessful because Sulzer left oily residue on the implant in violation of federal regulations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified a single question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Court in turn reformulated the question as one of first impression: "[w]hether 21 U.S.C. 337 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), [which provides] that all violations of the Act shall be prosecuted in the name of the United States, prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing a claim for negligence per se based on violation of a federal regulation under the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the FDCA?" Howard asserted that Oklahoma law would allow a claim for negligence per se to proceed based on the violation of a federal regulation, and that such a position was supported by a recent opinion promulgated by the Oklahoma Court. Sulzer argued that federal regulations are not the type of law which should give rise to negligence per se claims. The manufacturer also insisted that recognizing such a claim would contravene legislative intent where no clear standard of conduct is outlined. The Oklahoma Supreme Court was not persuaded by Sulzer's arguments and answered the single reformulated first impression question, "no." View "Howard v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law