MONTGOMERY v. POTTER, 2014 OK 118

Montgomery rear-ended by Potter; Montgomery was uninsured at the time of the accident.
Plaintiffs seek damages for medical expenses, personal injury, and pain and suffering, including Montgomery's claimed pain and suffering.
§ 7-116 (No Pay, No Play) precludes uninsured drivers from non-economic damages; Montgomery challenges this as unconstitutional.
Trial court struck down § 7-116 as an unconstitutional special law; defendant appeals by certified interlocutory order.
Court relies on Zeier v. Zimmer and Reynolds v. Porter to analyze whether § 7-116 targets a distinct subclass and is thus an unconstitutional special law.
The decision ultimately confirms the trial court's ruling, holding § 7-116 unconstitutional as a special law under art. 5, § 46.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §7-116 unconstitutional special law under art. 5, §46?	Montgomery argues the statute targets uninsured drivers, a subset of negligence plaintiffs.	Potter argues the statute applies generally to all uninsured drivers.	Yes; §7-116 is unconstitutional as a special law under art. 5, §46.

ZEIER v. ZIMMER, INC., 152 P.3d 861 (2006 OK 98) (targets a subset of negligence plaintiffs; asymmetry violates §46)
REYNOLDS v. PORTER, 760 P.2d 816 (1988 OK 88) (defines special law by under-inclusive treatment of a class)