478 P.3d 422
Okla.2020Background
- Homeowner Tokiko Johnson's property was storm-damaged; she filed an insurance claim and executed a post‑loss assignment of that claim to Triple Diamond Construction LLC to fund repairs.
- Triple Diamond's appraiser estimated $36,346.06 in storm damage; CSAA (insurer) paid $21,725.36.
- Johnson and Triple Diamond sued CSAA for breach of contract; Johnson also alleged insurer bad faith.
- CSAA moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment) to remove Triple Diamond, arguing the policy and 36 O.S. § 3624 prohibit assignment without insurer's written consent.
- The district court granted the motion and dismissed Triple Diamond; Johnson then voluntarily dismissed her claims without prejudice and Triple Diamond appealed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed: it held a post‑loss assignment of an insurance claim is an assignment of a chose in action (not an assignment of the policy), denied CSAA's motion to dismiss the appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insured may assign a post‑loss property‑insurance claim without insurer consent | Assignment was of a matured claim/chose in action; not an assignment of the policy; consent clause does not bar it | Policy and 36 O.S. § 3624 forbid any assignment absent written insurer consent; a policy cannot be split | Court: post‑loss assignment of a chose in action is permitted; it is not assignment of the policy; reversed dismissal |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the claim was split or a bad‑faith tort is unassignable | Triple Diamond: assignment valid; appeal proper after Johnson dismissed her claims | CSAA: claims were impermissibly split; bad‑faith (tort) claim cannot be assigned; Johnson is necessary party | Court: declined to decide assignability of bad‑faith tort (not adjudicated below); denied motion to dismiss appeal; left substantive split/assignability issues for further record development |
Key Cases Cited
- American Alliance Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. McCallie, 319 P.2d 295 (Okla. 1957) (recognizes exception that post‑loss assignment transfers a chose in action and is not barred by policy consent clause)
- Shadid v. American Druggist Fire Ins. Co., 386 P.2d 311 (Okla. 1963) (distinguishes assigning a matured claim from attempting to assign the policy to create coverage)
- Mann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 669 P.2d 768 (Okla. 1983) (discusses appealability when parts of a cause remain unresolved)
- Keller Foundations, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 626 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2010) (collects authorities endorsing the majority rule that post‑loss assignments of claims are permitted)
- Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 151 A.3d 576 (N.J. 2017) (explains public‑policy basis against restraints on alienation of choses in action)