MONTGOMERY v. POTTER, 341 P.3d 660

On December 13, 2011, Rachael Montgomery and her son were injured when Montgomery was rear-ended; Montgomery seeks damages including pain and suffering.
Montgomery admits her auto insurance had lapsed (~60 days) and she was an uninsured driver at the time.
Oklahoma statute 47 O.S. § 7-116 (the “No Pay, No Play” law) bars uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering), with enumerated exceptions not applicable here.
Montgomery filed a declaratory-judgment challenge asserting § 7-116 is an unconstitutional special law under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46.
The trial court declared § 7-116 unconstitutional as a special law; the defendant sought interlocutory appellate review and this Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court, holding § 7-116 impermissibly treats a subset of negligence plaintiffs differently than the general class of automobile-accident victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 47 O.S. § 7-116 is an unconstitutional special law under art. 5, § 46	§ 7-116 targets a subset of automobile negligence plaintiffs (uninsured drivers) and therefore creates an impermissible special law	The statute applies generally to all uninsured drivers and is therefore not a special law	The Court held § 7-116 is an unconstitutional special law because it treats less than an entire class of similarly situated negligence claimants differently

Zeier v. Zimmer, 152 P.3d 861 (2006 OK 98) (struck down statute that singled out medical-malpractice plaintiffs for different procedural treatment under art. 5, § 46)
Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (1988 OK 88) (explains that a special law separates part of an entire class for different treatment)