ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., 415 P.3d 521

Perry Odom, an employee of Penske Logistics, LLC (PL), was injured when a trailer owned by Penske Truck Leasing Co. (PTLC) fell on him. PL is a wholly owned subsidiary of PTLC.
Odom pursued workers' compensation under Oklahoma's AWCA (85A O.S. §§ 1 et seq.) and also sued PTLC in federal court for tortious negligence.
The federal district court dismissed the suit, relying on AWCA § 5(A)'s exclusive-remedy language; the Tenth Circuit certified the state-law question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The certified question asked whether AWCA § 5(A) abrogates the dual-capacity doctrine so that an employee cannot sue an employer’s stockholder for independent torts.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court examined statutory text, prior dual-capacity precedent (Weber), comparative Arkansas law, and parties’ arguments, and limited its review to the legal question certified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AWCA § 5(A) bar employee suits against an employer's stockholder for torts that arise independently of the employment relationship (i.e., does it abrogate the dual-capacity doctrine as to stockholders)?	Odom: § 5(A) should be read to bar only those stockholders acting in the role/capacity of employer; passive or separate-actor stockholders remain liable for independent torts.	PTLC: § 5(A) unambiguously extends exclusivity broadly to the listed classes (including "stockholder") regardless of other capacities, insulating stockholders from suit.	The Court held § 5(A) abrogates the dual-capacity doctrine as to employers but does not absolutely bar suits against stockholders who commit independent torts when the stockholder is not acting in the role of employer; whether a stockholder was acting as employer is a fact-specific inquiry.
Are the Odoms’ constitutional challenges to § 5(A) part of the certified question?	Odom: constitutional challenges were raised and would follow if § 5(A) is construed broadly.	PTLC: constitutional claims are beyond the certified question and were not timely raised in federal court.	The Court declined to decide constitutional claims as beyond the scope of the certified question.

Weber v. Armco, Inc., 663 P.2d 1221 (Okla. 1983) (formulation of dual-capacity doctrine: employer may be third-party tortfeasor only where a separate, independent persona exists)
Shadid v. K9 Univ., LLC, 402 P.3d 698 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017) (court of civil appeals recognized § 5(A) abrogates dual-capacity doctrine as to employers)
Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 392 P.3d 262 (Okla. 2017) (procedural guidance on answering certified questions of law)
Honeysuckle v. Curtis H. Stout, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 64 (Ark. 2010) (Arkansas interpretation requiring nexus between stockholder and employment for exclusivity to apply)
Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Res., Inc., 391 P.3d 111 (Okla. 2017) (statutory strict-construction principle applied to AWCA interpretation)