STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. PAYNE
2017 OK 95
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Jan 23, 2012: auto accident involving insured Tori Ukpaka and defendant Nicholas Payne.
- Jan 3, 2014: Ukpaka filed a timely negligence suit against Payne within the two‑year limitations period.
- State Farm paid Ukpaka $38,500 under uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and was pursuing subrogation rights.
- Jan 14, 2015: Ukpaka voluntarily dismissed her suit without prejudice, after the statute of limitations had run.
- Mar 20, 2015: State Farm (as subrogee of Ukpaka) filed the same negligence claim; Payne moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was time‑barred.
- Trial court and Court of Civil Appeals held State Farm could not invoke the one‑year savings statute (12 O.S. § 100); Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subrogated insurer may invoke 12 O.S. § 100 after insured voluntarily dismissed the original suit | State Farm: as subrogee "steps into the shoes" of the insured and thus is entitled to the savings statute's one‑year refiling period | Payne: State Farm was not the original plaintiff and so cannot be "the plaintiff" under § 100; its suit is time‑barred | Held: Yes. A subrogated insurer is "substantially the same, suing in the same right" as the insured and may invoke § 100 |
| Whether the subsequent action by State Farm is substantially the same as the original action | State Farm: same defendant, same facts, same legal theory, same damages — thus the claim is the same | Payne: change in nominal plaintiff defeats § 100 application | Held: The claims are the same in substance; no new cause of action was alleged |
| Whether treating subrogees like insureds for savings statute is consistent with accrual/limitations law | State Farm: prior precedent treats accrual and limitations for subrogees as coincident with insureds; fairness dictates parallel treatment under savings statute | Payne: allowing subrogees § 100 benefits undermines defendant's repose | Held: Consistent with precedent — subrogees share temporal fate with insureds and may benefit from § 100 |
| Prejudice to defendant from allowing refiling by subrogee | State Farm: defendant had notice and the same defenses; no unfair prejudice | Payne: argued procedural change harms repose | Held: No prejudice shown; purpose of limitations (notice/ability to defend) satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mosby, 943 P.2d 593 (1997) (subrogation: insurer "steps into the shoes" of insured; accrual for subrogee aligns with insured)
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. Townes, 64 P.2d 712 (1936) (successor/substitute party may invoke savings statute where action is same in substance)
- Haught v. Continental Oil Co., 136 P.2d 691 (1943) (savings statute applies where parties and claim are substantially the same despite nominal changes)
- Garrett v. Downing, 90 P.2d 636 (1939) (distinguishes when a subsequent plaintiff is not substantially the same; shareholder v. corporation example)
- C & C Tile Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa Cty., 503 P.2d 554 (1972) (savings statute is remedial and should be liberally construed; party in new action must be substantially the same)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Assocs. Transps., Inc., 512 P.2d 137 (1973) (subrogated insurer brings same cause of action as insured; cannot maintain independent action prior to rights arising)