MEEKS v. GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY, 392 P.3d 278

Background

Meeks was awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC); Guarantee Insurance (Insurer) allegedly failed to pay on 26 separate occasions between 2012–2014.
The WCC’s June 26, 2014 order found Insurer repeatedly failed to comply with prior TTD orders, identified the 26 dates, assessed penalties/interest, but denied certification under 85 O.S. § 42(A) because penalties were paid before the hearing.
Meeks filed a district-court tort action alleging insurer bad faith in refusing to provide court-ordered TTD benefits; Insurer moved to dismiss arguing certification prerequisites were not met.
The district court dismissed, finding no proper § 42(A)/Rule 58 certification in light of the WCC’s denial of § 42(A) relief; Meeks appealed.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal to clarify Summers v. Zurich’s application to awards that were paid (or later satisfied) but were not provided as ordered.
Court held the June 26, 2014 WCC order satisfied Summers’ certification requirement for the category “benefits not provided as ordered,” permitting Meeks’ bad-faith suit to proceed in district court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction to hear bad-faith tort when WCC denied § 42(A) certification because penalties were paid	Meeks: WCC’s June 26 order explicitly found insurer failed to provide benefits as ordered and showed no good cause—satisfies Summers’ certification for benefits not provided as ordered	Insurer: Because the WCC denied § 42(A) certification, procedural prerequisites for a bad-faith suit were not met; bad-faith actions limited to unpaid awards per Sizemore	Court: Jurisdiction exists—WCC order satisfied Summers’ second certification category (benefits not provided as ordered) despite § 42(A) denial for unpaid amount
Whether a WCC order that shows benefits were later paid can certify for bad-faith when insurer earlier refused or delayed payment	Meeks: Certification may be based on failure to provide benefits as ordered even if monetary award was ultimately paid	Insurer: § 42(A) applies only to unpaid monetary awards; satisfaction of award precludes certification and thus tort suit	Court: If WCC finds insurer failed to provide benefits as ordered and insurer failed to show good cause, that finding suffices for certification under Summers’ second category even if award was later paid
What WCC findings are required for certification under Summers’ “benefits not provided as ordered” category	Meeks: WCC must identify prior ordered benefits, find they were not provided as ordered, and find insurer lacked good cause	Insurer: The WCC must follow § 42(A)/Rule 58 formalities; denial of § 42(A) means no certification	Court: Rule 58 hearing with notice and a WCC order that (1) identifies the ordered benefits, (2) states they were not provided as ordered, and (3) finds insurer failed to demonstrate good cause, satisfies Summers—no magic words required
Whether employee must first execute judgment under § 42(A) before filing bad-faith tort	Meeks: Not required; once certification obtained, employee may either file certified judgment or bring bad-faith tort	Insurer: Employee should pursue statutory remedies first; bad-faith tort is improper when statutory process resolves arrearages	Court: Employee need not pursue execution first—after proper certification the bad-faith tort may proceed; unpaid benefit amount in certification is an element of damages

Key Cases Cited

Summers v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 213 P.3d 565 (Okla. 2009) (articulates two certification categories: unpaid awards or benefits not provided as ordered)
Sizemore v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 142 P.3d 47 (Okla. 2006) (recognizes tort bad-faith remedy for refusal to pay WCC award and discusses § 42 certification/limitations)
Silljer v. Mega Life & Health Ins. Co., 213 P.3d 1156 (Okla. 2009) (applies Summers; emphasizes need for WCC certification that benefits were not provided as ordered)
Goodwin v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 828 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1992) (recognizes insurer’s implied duty of good faith and possibility of tort recovery for bad-faith refusal to pay workers’ compensation benefits)
Christian v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 577 P.2d 899 (Okla. 1977) (establishes insurer’s implied duty of good faith and prompt payment in workers’ compensation context)
Martin v. Gray, 385 P.3d 64 (Okla. 2016) (reaffirms bad-faith claim is an independent tort)