STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. PAYNE
2017 OK 95
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Jan. 23, 2012 auto accident injured insured Tori Ukpaka; two-year statute of limitations applies to negligence claims.
- Ukpaka filed suit against Nicholas Payne on Jan. 3, 2014 (within limitations).
- State Farm paid Ukpaka $38,500 under UM/UIM coverage and later obtained subrogation rights.
- Ukpaka voluntarily dismissed her suit without prejudice on Jan. 14, 2015 (after the limitations period had run).
- State Farm filed suit as subrogee on Mar. 20, 2015, within one year of Ukpaka’s dismissal, invoking the savings statute, 12 O.S. § 100.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing State Farm cannot use § 100 because it was not the original plaintiff; district court and court of appeals agreed; 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 original suit | State Farm: as subrogee it "steps into the shoes" of insured and is therefore "the plaintiff" under § 100 | Payne: § 100 applies only to the identical plaintiff or a statutory representative who was the plaintiff in the original action | Yes. A subrogated insurer is "substantially the same, suing in the same right" as the insured and may invoke § 100 |
| Whether State Farm’s action is "substantially the same" as Ukpaka’s original action | State Farm: complaint alleges same defendant, same accident, same negligence theory, same damages — thus same action | Payne: different nominal plaintiff changes availability of § 100 and bars revival | Yes. The subsequent suit alleges the same cause, facts, defenses, and relief; defendant suffered no prejudice |
| Whether subrogation changes accrual or limitations treatment for insurer | State Farm: subrogee should be treated like insured for savings statute | Payne: (implicit) subrogee is a separate party for procedural grace periods | Court: consistent with prior law — subrogee shares accrual date and should share savings statute benefits |
| Whether liberal construction of savings statute favors State Farm | State Farm: § 100 is remedial and to be liberally construed to effectuate notice/policy goals | Payne: narrow construction prevents post-deadline substitution | Court: applies liberal construction; focus is substantial identity and same right |
Key Cases Cited
- Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mosby, 943 P.2d 593 (Okla. 1997) (subrogated insurer "steps into the shoes" of insured; insurer shares accrual date for statute of limitations)
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. Townes, 64 P.2d 712 (Okla. 1936) (successor/substitution of parties is form, not substance; savings statute applies where rights are the same)
- Haught v. Continental Oil Co., 136 P.2d 691 (Okla. 1943) (savings statute applies where parties are substantially the same and suing in the same right)
- Garrett v. Downing, 90 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1939) (distinguishes where plaintiff and subsequent party represent different interests; shareholder cannot toll statute for corporation)
- C & C Tile Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa Cty., 503 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1972) (restates test: new plaintiff must be substantially the same, suing in the same right)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Assocs. Transps., Inc., 512 P.2d 137 (Okla. 1973) (subrogation: single cause of action for damages; subrogee cannot assert greater rights than insured)