Simonson v. Schaefer, 301 P.3d 413

Question presented: whether a court-appointed expert paid by a party to a divorce is immune from tort claims even if no testimony or report is provided.
Plaintiff Simonson sues Schaefer for professional negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from the court-ordered evaluation.
Schaefer moved to dismiss under 12 O.S.2011, § 2012(B)(6) for failure to state a claim; she argues immunity bars the claims since she acted in an adjudicative role.
The parties entered into a contract for the court-ordered evaluation; Simonson paid $16,000 for the expert’s services.
Appellee allegedly did not provide the written report; Simonson contends settlement of the underlying divorce affected the opportunity to complete or testify.
Trial court granted dismissal; the appeal reviews whether the expert’s immunity defeats the petition and whether the fee claim can survive dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court-appointed expert paid by a party is immune from suit when no testimony or report is provided	Simonson argues immunity does not bar claims for nonperformance or breach	Schaefer contends the expert’s duties were adjudicative and fully shielded by judicial immunity	Reversed and remanded for further consideration

Hartley v. Williamson, 18 P.3d 355 (OK Civ. App. 2001) (establishes immunity for testimony in judicial proceedings)
Kirschstein v. Haynes, 788 P.2d 941 (OK 1990) (absolute privilege for communications preliminary to judicial proceedings)
Hathcock v. Barnes, 25 P.3d 295 (OK Civ. App. 2001) (court-appointed expert immune when acting as unbiased examiner for custody)