*1 VHI OK 96 KUYKENDALL, Appellant, C.C. SUMMARY laches allowance trial court's 127 The AEROSPACE GULFSTREAM quest enforcement against Mother's defense TECHNOLOGIES, contrary weight of clearly contest is in Appellee. defense, we laches evidence. Absent agree- whether say on this record cannot 97,036. No. led to would have alone ment-based defense Mother's trial court's denial enforce- Supreme Court Oklahoma. of Father's affirmance quest. Because ment 2002. (on Dec. agreement-based victory prius nisi defense) due, the cause stands not his April Rehearing Denied re-inquiry full adversarial for a remanded against Moth- of this defense into the merits proceedings postremand In demand.
er's court trial pronouncement, this
follow an enforce- there was
may consider whether relin- reduction agreement-based
able of the obli- the amount
quishment and assess due, any. In the event if
gation still obligation unpaid is an that there
court finds judg- enforced, give it Mother should
to be for that amount.
ment post-decree order trial court's
128 The part; cause reversed part and
affirmed to be further consideration
remanded today's pronouncement.
consistent with ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. generally judgments are that owing child-support in mind the rule past-due and made the they governed by at the time the law in effect be full, see enforceable until paid installments 1996), (eff, supra § Evans, Evans v. O.$.Supp.1996 1 Nov. were entered. 10-11, ¶¶ five- statute that eliminated 12. For the (a) argument express opinion for enforcement on Father's year limitations We no statute of 95(6). O.$.1981 support, sup- unpaid see 12 child in child entitled to a reduction that he was (b) majority or extinguished the port each child reached that For the 1996 amendment past-due response automatic modifications that upon Mother's the enforcement time bar installments, O.S.Supp. provisions of 43 prohibited child-support see unpaid - 1994). 118(B)(1) (enacted Sept. We 95(9). after-en O0.$.$upp.1996 Each of these eff. foretell, accuracy, any degree carefully with cannot provisions considered should acted pro- again postremand will arise these issues on the effect, if to ascertain its any, in order enforced, ceedings. keeping sought obligation to be that is *2 Falsetti, Louis P. Brady, Schaulat & Fal- setti, OK, City, Oklahoma for Appellant. Gary Pierson, C. Shawn Harrell, E. Na- than L. Whatley, McAfee & Taft a Profes- Corporation, sional City, OK, Oklahoma for Appellee. WINCHESTER, J.
11 The issue before us is whether Okla- homa will recognize a tort for bad faith against a who failed to pay for prescribed medicine for its employee ordered a Workers' Compensation Court. We decline to create a common law remedy when legislature provided has statutory remedy in the Compensa- Workers' tion Act.
2 On August 14, 2001,
appellant,
C.C.
Kuykendall,
petition
filed a
in district court
naming Gulfstream Aerospace Technologies,
appellee,
as defendant.
petition
al-
leged
Kuykendall
that
filed pleadings in
Compensation
Workers'
reopen
prior court order for a change
condition,
worsening
of a
injury
neck
he had suf-
fered. An order
permanent
for
partial dis-
ability was
filed on September
2000, which
appealed
was
Court En Bane. That court affirmed the trial
court's order on
November
2000. The
trial
provided
court's order
Gulfstream,
that
a self-insured employer,
provide
should
claimant, Kuykendall, with continuing pre-
seription medication from Dr. Steve Drabek
Kuykendall's
maintain
condition.
Kuykendall
forwarded these prescrip-
tion receipts to Gulfstream for reimburse-
ment in January 2001. The total amount for
the prescriptions
$2,629.78.
was
Without an
explanation, Gulfstream forwarded a check to
Kuykendall
$1,811.89,
for
pay
refused to
the balance of
preseriptions,
all of which
prescribed
were
by Dr. Drabek.
January
On
18,2001,Kuykendall filed pleadings in Work-
Fund
Insurance
sued the State
and his wife
to revoke Gulf-
Compensation Court
ers'
(SIF)
pay
a workers'
faith failure
for bad
court de-
permit. The
risk"
"own
stream's
alleged
petition
Their
revocation,
award.
but
Kuykendall's request
nied
Compensation Court
pay for the treat-
the Workers
required Gulfstream
-
partial
Fehring permanent
disabili-
However,
continued
has
awarded
Gulfstream
ment.
final,
the order became
prescrip-
ty
After
benefits.
the balance
to refuse
*3
pe-
his
subsequently filed
by
Kuykendall
timely paid
the SIF.
tions.
were not
the benefits
order
Compensation Court
Another Workers'
court.
tition in district
paid. After
had not
the SIF
issued because
alleged that Gulfstream's
petition
T4 The
final,
refused to
still
SIF
that order became
malicious, and
faith and
in bad
were
actions
that the Governmen-
The
found
pay.
Court
the
the orders of Work-
disregard for
its
that
(GTCA) protected the
Act
Claims
tal Tort
without rea-
were
Compensation Court
ers'
For
of action.
faith cause
against a bad
SIF
petition asked for
The
justification.
son or
GTCA, the
under the
agency to be liable
an
in the
prescriptions
the
the balance
the
conduct of
prove that
the
plaintiff must
damages.
$1,817.89, plus punitive
of
amount
employee's
within the
agency's employee was
motion to dis-
a
answered with
Gulfstream
To be within
employment.
seope of
did not
court
claiming that
the district
miss
employee's actions
seope
employment,
of
and that
jurisdiction,
subject matter
have
agency's em-
If an
good
in
faith.
must be
against
a claim
to state
Kuykendall failed
faith,
employeewould
in
ployee acted
bad
grant-
could be
relief
upon which
Gulfstream
seope
employment
of
acting within
not be
the trial
Kuykendall
responded,
ed. After
immune under
agency would be
and the
prejudice.
the case with
dismissed
court
Fehring did
Kuykendall concludes that
act.
Kuykendall had failed
found that
court
recognition
a cause of
of
exclude future
not
could
relief
be
upon which
a claim
state
He
post-award conduct.
for bad faith
action
cause of action
no viable
granted because
a cause of
Fehring assumed such
urges that
aris-
post-award conduct
faith
existed for bad
existed,
of
prior
all
decisions
as had
action
in
compensation case
ing
of a
out
workers'
this Court.
Appeals re-
The Court
Civil
Oklahoma.
grant-
cases,
previously
and remanded. We
Anderson
versed
T7 The
Goodwin
Fehring,
bad faith
ed certiorari.
in
discuss
which are cited
com
an
workers'
refusal
Gulfstream,
petition
in
for writ
its
assume for
Both cases
pensation award.
of Civil
certiorari,
argues that
the Court
a
resolving
that work-
the issues
purpose of
new tort for
created a
Appeals' opinion has
erg
company
compensation insurance
conduct
a workers'
faith
willful, mali
liability in
subjected to
tort
by this
despite decisions
compensation case
cious,
pay.
Good
faith refusal
and bad
contrary.
cites
Gulfstream
431-432,
win,
34, ¶ 1,
P.2d at
1992 OK
Fund,
cases,
Fehring v. State Ins.
three
124, 16,
Anderson,
at
948 P.2d
1997 OK
276,
11,
Fidel
Anderson
U.S.
19 P.3d
OK
faith Good
discussion of bad
1217. The
124,
948 P.2d
1997 OK
ty and Guar.
Okla
to a conclusion Whitson
win led
1216,
Republic Ins.
v. Old
and Goodwin
Co., 1995
Mut. Ins.
Farmers Union
homa
34,
481. Gulfstream
828 P.2d
1992 OK
4, ¶ 8,
that Goodwin
OK
has not
"To date this Court
quotes Fehring:
duty
good
actually recognized an insurer's
viability of a
unequivocally sanctioned
injured workers'
dealing to the
faith and fair
against a workers'
tort suit
Fehring corrected
compensation claimant. -
post-award conduct
the bad faith
insurer for
that Goodwin
and observed
that conclusion
compensa
timely pay a workers'
failing to
(Good
a claim existed.
merely assumed such
11, ¶ 26, 19
Fehring, 2001 OK
tion claim."
34, ¶¶ 1, 15, 17,
win,
P.2d at
1992 OK
support that observation
To
P.3d at 284.
¶11, 26,
486;
431-432,485,
Fehring, 2001 OK
concurring and
specially
cited the
this Court
at
n. 20.
n.
19 P.3d
in Anderson.
dissenting opinions
that a
case holds
18 No Oklahoma
that
the issue
Kuykendall answers
duty
compensation insurer has
In that case a claimant
Fehring
narrow.
was
good faith in paying a
Whitson,
10 In
argued
claimant
award,
the violation of which is a tort. A
employer,
his
happened
which
to be an insur
holding of a case declares the conclusion of
ance company, but not the carrier for work
law reached
the court
legal
as to the
ers' compensation, had
duty
effect of the facts disclosed.
Law
Black's
toward him tantamount
to that
owed
(5th
Dictionary
ed.1979).
"Holding"
insurance company to its insured. After cit
may be contrasted
dictum,
with obiter
which
ing the exclusivity provision, the Court re
is a statement
in a decision that is unneces
ferred to Goodwin and concluded that "an
sary
support
reached.
liability to an injured worker is
conclusion
American
Walker,
Trailers v.
1974 OK
limited to that
by §
created
12 of the Work
¶ 18,
1154. Ratio decidendi is
ers'
Whitson,
Act.
ground
or reason of the decision and
¶ 8, 889P.2d at 287.
refers to a statement
in a decision necessary
111 Harter Concrete
support
Harris,
Products v.
the holding. Black's Law Dictio
*4
(5th
1185,
1979 OK
nary
ed.1979).
In Goodwin and
describes
the
purpose and
Anderson,
effect of the
assumptions
Workers' Compen
concerning a bad
engeted
faith tort
sation statutes.
were made for
purpose
the
These
of de
statutes were
provide
to
ciding
the
remedy
issues in
substitute
the two
to an
compen
employ
ee
cases,
sation
for
injuries
accidental
but no conclusion
during
of
received
law was
cov
ered employment.
reached regarding such a
tort.
burden of proving
negligence was removed.
In exchange,
the
19 Even if this Court were
recog
to
employer protected
is
from other liability
nize an
duty
insurer's
to
exercise
to the employee. Harter held that
pro
this
and fair dealing toward a
compensa
worker's
tection extended to all Hability, whether di
claimant,
tion
duty
would
apply
not
indirect,
rect or
resulting from the employ
equally to a
employer.
The cit
injuries.
ee's
Harter,
38, ¶ 7,
1979 OK
ed cases draw a
between workers'
distinction
P.2d at 528. Accordingly, the self-insured
compensation insurers and self-insured em
employer's liability is limited
provided
to that
ployers.
In Goodwin the Court cited the
by the Workers' Compensationstatutes.:
exelusivity provision, now codified
as
0.8.
provides
which
pertinent
part:
112 The
Compensation
Workers'
Act
"The liability prescribed in Section 11 of this
provides
remedies
available to employees
title shall be exclusive and in place of all
when
employers
their
or insurance compa
other liability
employer ... at common
nies
provision.
violate a
Section 42 sets forth
otherwise,
law or
for such injury,
loss of
the sole remedy available when there is a
services, or death ...."
added.)
(Emphasis
pay
failure
due under
the
The Court then
potential
contrasted the
lia
terms of an award. Lum
Way
Lee
Motor
bility of an insurer with
liability
the
of an
¶
Freight,
112, 28,
1987OK
employer
commented,
and
"It should be not
Title
0.98.2001, 42(A)
provides in perti
ed that the exclusivity provision
the stat
of
part:
nent
ute relates to the liability
the employer-
of
not that
the
insurer." (Emphasis
If payment
origi
of
of
or an
install-
nal.) Goodwin,
34, ¶ 5,
payment
OK
ment
of
P.2d at
due under
continues,
Goodwin
pro
"Section 12
the
terms of an award ...
is not made
(10)
vides an
within ten
days
remedy
exclusive
after the same is due
for
type
one
of
injuries i.e.,
claim-work-related
by the
liability
the
or insurance carrier liable
therefor,
employer."
the
Goodwin,
34, ¶
the
may
Court
order a certified
12,
T7 This Court has never indicated that a ations.1 employer is entitled to the bene- fit of the Act's remedy provision exclusive September 8, T3 On employee the when, acting insurer, while as an was successful in having the workers' com- wrongful- it ly and intentionally pay refuses to a pensation workers' reopened cause based on a change compensation award. I would hold that a in condition for the worse. employer The insurer or a self-in- appealed to the Workers' Compensation employer sured standing in an insurer's Court en bane. In an order dated November 0.$.2001 1. Title 85 § provides pertinent in otherwise, services, injury, for such loss of or part: death, employee, to the spouse, personal or the representative, parents, dependents or employer "A. of the An shall secure employee, any person. or employees other employ- to his If an in following one of ways: the er has By payment failed to ... 4. secure the furnishing compen- satisfactory proof to the injured sation for employee, his legal Administrator employer's of the or his financial abili- ty pay compensation.... representatives such if death injury, results from the may employer C. An maintain an who action _ comply fails to in the with courts for dam- the provisions ages of this subject injury, section shall account of such to the and in such penalty provided for in action the plead Section 12 defendant prove of this ti- not tle. ..." a injury defense that the was caused the Title provides § pertinent negligence 0.8.2001 part: servant, in of a fellow or that the liability prescribed ''The employee in Section 11 of this assumed the employment, risk of his title shall be place exclusive and in of all other injury or that the was due to contributory the lability employer of the ... at common law negligence employee of the ..." em- Determining that the case. pensation trial affirmed the 29, 2000, en bane the Court employer to court, ordering the bad faith specifically a valid claim for ployee had stated conduct, Ap- the Court Civil continuing pre- employee with provide the following January, the cause on The and remanded seription peals medication. reversed receipts prescription granted employee February forwarded certiorari the 2002. We Although $2,629.78. totaling employer his April review on expenditures reimbursed balance of $1,311.89, pay it refused REFUSAL TO T6 MAJORITY'S tried, Thereafter, $1,817.89. OF ACTION A CAUSE RECOGNIZE unsuccessful, employ- having the was but BAD THE POST-AWARD FOR - Nevertheless, permit revoked. own-risk er's A BREACH OF WORKERS' FAITH Compensation Court deter- the Workers' IS UN- INSURER COMPENSATION treatment employee's medical mined that BY LEGISLATIVE SUPPORTED Further, necessary. a was reasonable MANDATE, CON- OPINIONS OUR the em- April order dated second BAD THE NATURE OF SIDERING provide treat- ployer again directed to was IN THE FAITH WORK- ACTIONS di- employer ignored second ment. The ARENA OR ERS' COMPENSATION pay. rective EXTANT JURIS- WELL-REASONED year employer was T4 after the Almost PRUDENCE. initially pay the costs of the em- ordered to drugs and five months ployee's prescription argues that Oklahoma T7 The reimbursement, after the second order support recogni will not jurisprudence in district court. employee filed this cause post-award con faith claim for tion of a bad sought punitive actual compensation arena. in the workers' duct faith, mali- employer's bad damages for his Further, employer asserts that 85 0.8. cious, refusing post-award conduct 11,2 commonly to as the ex referred drugs. prescription for the court-ordered liability clusivity it from all provision, shields compensa imposed the workers' not under 28, 2001, court the trial October On Finally, employer insists tion statutes. to dismiss granted the motion provides exclusive that 85 0.8.2001 finding not prejudice that Oklahoma did with post- for enforcement of mechanism recognize a faith cause of action for contrast, In compensation award.3 com- arising from a workers' award conduct copy perti- Supp.2001 provides the Court order certified 2. Title 85 0.S. of the court clerk award to be filed in the office part: nent whether accumu- which award subject provisions Every employer county, "A. *7 lump shall the same force lative or sum have Compensation pay, Act shall or of the Workers' subject judgments same law as of and be to the Compen- required by provide the Workers' as Any compensation awarded the district court. Act, according compensation sation payments to be made and all thereof directed Compensation Act of the Workers' schedules Court, by except of an of the in the case order employee disability an re- the or death of compensa- appeal an award or an award of of injury sulting personal sus- from an accidental Fund, Multiple Injury Trust shall tion from the arising by employee and in the out of tained eighteen percent bear interest at the rate regard employment, without the course of (18%) by year paid per from the date ordered injury a cause of such ..." fault as satisfaction.... the Court until the date of since date of Section 11 has been amended the copy Upon filing of the of the certified the Nevertheless, injury. quoted because the lan- shall issue Court's award a writ of execution statute, guage identical to that of the is process executed and the cost shall be references are to the current version. execu- in the case of writs of taxed, thereof as 0.$.2001 pertinent provides § record, Title 85 tion, pro- judgments of courts part: Statutes; by Title 12 of the Oklahoma vided however, compensation payment provisions or an install- provided, "A. If of this sec- compensation process payment relating due under the for the ment to execution and tion award, except an cumu- an in the case of awards shall be and are terms of enforcement of existing provisions or appeal an award or an award from to other now lative Fund, relating adopted Injury may Multiple is not made within which hereafter be Trust (10) days of awards or claims is due liens or enforcement ten after the same therefore, compensation. employer liable or insurance carrier contends that the Workers' ees for injuries. work-related Employers Compensation Act prohibit does not his re who fail to secure subject covery and that our support cases the recog to the penalty provisions §of 12 of the nition of a bad faith cause of action for a self- Compensation Workers Act allowing an em insured post-award conduct. ployee or representative to maintain an action in district court for {8 injur work-related Here, the employer wearing two ies.10 Title 12 0.98.2001 provides hats, that of and that of an insurer. pertinent part: The insurer's hat was substituted for the employer's hat once the Compensa Workers' . If an employer has failed to secure tion Court payment ordered of prescription payment of compensation for his in- expenses. The protections same accorded to jured employee, or legal his representa- an under the Compensa Workers tives if death results from injury, may tion Act do not extend to that of an insurer.4 maintain an action in the courts for dam- liability of self-insured or own-risk em ages on account of such injury, such ployers is analogous to that of insurance action the defendant not plead or carriers.5 The self-insured or own-risk em prove as a defense injury was ployer voluntarily assumes the status as ins caused negligence of a fellow serv- urer.6 simply There is no distinction be ant, or that assumed the risk tween a workers' compensation insurance of his employment, or that the injury was carrier and an employer who voluntarily as due to the contributory negligence of the sumes self-insured Therefore, status.7 if an employee ..." insurer faith, sued for bad a similar The legislatively-imposed penalties are se cause of action against will lie the self-insured vere. The employer striped of the de empl oyer.8 negligence fenses of servant, a fellow as sumption of the risk and I. contributory negligence.11 T9 A. AN INJURED EMPLOYEE MAY T11 Equally onerous is the legislatively- MAINTAIN A COMMON LAW AC prescribed penalty for an insurer's intention-
TION FOR
IF
DAMAGES
THE EM-
al, knowing or wilful violation
provi-
of other
PLOYER FAILS TO SECURE THE sions of the Workers' Compensation Act, as-
PAYMENT OF - COMPENSATION sociated rules or regulations-suspension or
FOR THE INJURIES.
revocation of the insurer's license or authori-
110 Title 85
0.8.2001
requires
ty
to do business
in Oklahoma. Title 85
employer to
secure
to employ
42(B)
$
00.98.2001
provides:
any
B.
If
insurance
intentionally,
carrier
8. White
v. Northwestern Bell Tele
knowingly,
willfully
or
pro-
violates
(Iowa
1994).
also,
N.W.2d
Arp
See
visions of the
Act
infra;
Balyint
AON/Combined
any published
regulations
rules
promulgat-
Freight
Arkansas Best
Inc., note
Sys.,
33, infra.
ed thereunder,
the Insurance
Commissioner,
request
on the
judge
of a
of the Court or the
61(A)
Title
85 0.9.2001
employers
allows
Administrator,
shall
secure
or revoke the li-
through a workers' com-
suspend
authority
cense or
of such insurance carrier to
pensation
*8
policy, by
insurance
obtaining guaran-
compensation
do a
business in this state."
insurance,
ty
by
agreement
an
employees
with
through which
compensation
a scheme of
in lieu
4. Whitson v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mutual
of
workers'
provided
benefits is
or
¶
Ins. Co.,
PFL
Ins. Co.
Casualty
Taylor v.
Farm Fire &
State
Life
Brooks,
156;
State Ins. Fund v.
11-14,
¶¶
P.2d 1253.
OK
50, ¶ 7,
P.2d 653.
OK
Mutual Ins.
Farm Bureau
Pittsburgh
28. - Barnes v. Oklahoma
25. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of
McDougall,
see note
infra.
385 IL. 31 In Republic Goodwin Old 1992 OK 828 P.2d began by we 128 - OKLAHOMA - JURISPRUDENCE assuming that a compensation workers' bad LED REA- HAS EMPLOYEES TO faith insurer could be held for liable its bad EXPECT FAIR SsONABLY DEALING pay faith refusal to a valid claim. We deter- AND HAS PUT WORKERS COM- mined in Goodwin that no award could be PENSATION INSURERS ON NO- sustained on the insurer's pay failure to THAT TICE ACTING IN BAD FAITH eighteen claim days within of the award. MAY SUBJECT INSURER TO Nevertheless, things several in Goodwin TORT DAMAGES. were indisputable. found to be opinion The provides: pronouncement 129 Our most recent con-
cerning
possibility bringing
a bad faith
undisputed
"It is
that intentional acts are
post-award
action for
in
conduct
the workers'
statutorily excluded under
the Workers
arena,
compensation
Fehring v. State Ins.
Compensation
undisputed
Act. It
is
Fund,
factually
2001 OK
is
faith
pay
refusal
an insurance
Granted,
distinguishable.
Fehring,
we
may
contract under its terms
be an inten-
unequivocable
stated that there had been no
tional tort.
It
undisputed
that 15 0.8.
viability
against
sanction of the
of a
suit
tort
§
1982
party
29 authorizes a third
benefi-
compensation
a workers'
insurer for the bad
clary to enforce the terms of a contract
failing
timely
conduct of
party's
made for the
benefit.
It is indis-
pay a
compensation
workers'
Fur-
award.
putable
§
that 85 0.8.1981
65.3 declares
ther,
majority
upon
relied
0.8.
coverage
that insurance
is secured for the
providing
42 as
an enforcement mechanism
benefit of the worker and that the worker
payment
compensation
for
of workers'
party beneficiary
is the third
under the
doing,
espoused
In
awards.
so
we
no reason
policy.
injured by
If an
recognizing monetary
sanction over that
insurer's bad
failure to
faith-intentional
provided by the
Compensation
Act.
pay
award,
benefits under an
the em-
ployee has a common law action in tort
Nevertheless,
1 30
Fehring did not involve
under the Christian
[Foot-
doctrine."
company
either an insurance
or a self-in
Emphasis
*12
actions in district court-is
award bad faith
we disal-
carrier. While
insurance
sation
Goodwin,
Fehring,
Anderson and
to overrule
conduct, we
pre-award
a claim
lowed
Otherwise,
has left
the
the Court
YWCA.
Goodwin,
supra, recognized that
that
noted
opportu
there
be some
impression that
apart
separate
and
was
faith claim
bad
bringing of a bad faith action
nity for the
relationship
and that
it
the work
from
against
precluded such actions
when it has
only
against
after an
the insurer
arose
employers.
and self-insured
both insurers
entered.
had been
award
employer here is self-in
fact that
the
The
prohibit
application of this
will not
sured
{33
signal
to
Perhaps
the most obvious
company.
involving
to one
an insurance
case
of the need
compensation insurers
workers'
liability
or own risk em
The
of self insured
good
faith is YWCA Oklahoma
to act
carrier
ployers
to that of insurance
is identical
Melson,
81,
304.
City v.
1997 OK
between a
s.31
There is no distinction
YWCA,
compensation self-in-
In
a workers'
carrier and
compensation insurance
workers'
prohibit
pro-
attempted to
group
sured
voluntarily
self-insured
employer
an
who
assumes
financial documents
duction of
Therefore,
if a self-insured
statu
s.32
actual
proof
support an
sought for in-trial
to
post-
subject to suit for its
is not
faith
damages claim for the bad
punitive
and
conduct, an insurer will not
award bad faith
pay a
failure
tortious acts. There
be liable for
same
that the
This Court held YWCA
award.
bringing
no avenue for the
simply will be
consider-
discoverable with
documents were
claim associated with
bad faith tort
protection of sensi-
being made for the
ation
compensation cause.
materials, Although the existence of a
tive
presented for resolu-
faith claim was not
IL.
cause,
discovery
tion in the
we allowed
pur-
utilized for the
intended to be
materials
1
EXTANT JURIS-
36 WELL-REASONED
damages
in tort.
gaining a
award
pose of
CONSID-
PRUDENCE-NEITHER -
BY THE
ERED
ANALYZED
NOR
[
together-Fehring,
considered
34 When
THE REC-
MAJORITY-SUPPORTS
Goodwin,
and YWCA-have
fore-
Anderson
BAD
OF
TORT OF
OGNITION
cast,
and
insurance carriers
CON-
FAITH FOR POST-AWARD
act in
faith to
employers,
the need to
DUCT.
liability.
those cases as a
tort
With
avoid
ignored two
it
137 Just as the
part
jurisprudence,
is rea-
of Oklahoma's
employee's pre-
expect fair
court orders to
for the
sonable both
Gas, Inc.,
pre-award
conduct was insufficient to
Natural
30.
v. CMS Continental
Davis
delaying payment
support
and
a bad faith claim
that an
33, ¶ 16,
387
seription drugs, the majority ignores persua-
er workers' compensations statutes similar to
sive extant jurisprudence
supporting the im-
prohibit
Oklahoma's
the institution of bad
position of a bad faith cause of action for
against
claims
insurers.33
Court,
This
post-award conduct.
majority
makes no
like several
presented
others
with the issue
reference to
jurisprudence.
extant
Never-
of whether such a claim will lie in
pre-
theless, many courts have considered wheth-
context,
award
has determined that
the dis
allowing
Courts
recovery for bad
Arp
faith.
(1989);
v.
645-46
Mitchell,
Zurich Ins. Co. v.
712
(8th
Ins. Co.,
AON/Combined
CONCLUSION from a bad faith suit to a self-insured em- ployer in specific absence of statutory lan- {41 It axiomatic that an guage requiring such a result and in the rights and remedies from inju- an accidental presence Legislature's declaration ry employment suffered the course of that, third-party beneficiaries, employees exclusively provided under the Workers may enforce such contracts. majority Compensation Act, 1,§ 85 0.8.2001 seq. et does although Legislature so has had the District subject courts have juris- no matter benefit of rulings numerous this Court diction over claim to workers' indicating that such a might cause of action Nevertheless, benefits. exclusivity prin- well lie in situations. Rather ciple is limited to surrounding job- matters *15 judicially than legislating a sup- result not injury. related accidental It does not extend ported required by Compen- Workers' dealings during which a tort Act, prior sation our jurisprudence or well- may arise reason of a bad faith breach law, reasoned extant case recognize I would the insurer or employer. Al- the cause of action expressing without wheth- though administrative fines have some presented er the facts support an award. deterrent effect employers, on self-insured preempt decision to the common law they do purport not plight to address the action should be Legislature's left injured worker who great suffer through wisdom specific the use of language deprivation as a result of the tortious denial disagrees if it with such a resolution. delay Further, of benefits. allowing an proceed in tort in the district court does not province invade the Court. Before an
employee may
action,
file a bad faith
45.
v. Travelers
Co.,
Ins.
see
Brazier
note 33 at
49.
v.
Co.,
American Motorists
Ins.
Boylan
v.
(Iowa
Co.,
Continental
Ins.
see
1992);
supra; Hayes
N.W.2d
742, 744
Southern Farm
Savio,
supra;
note 33 at
Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Holland,
Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v.
see note
1270, supra.
see note 33 at
Underwriters,
supra; Hayes v. Aetna Fire
see note
33 at 261, supra.
Hayes
Co.,
v. Continental Ins.
see note 33 at
672, supra;
Corp.,
Falline v. GNLV
see note 33 at
50. Coleman v. American Universal
Co.,
Ins.
see
Travelers
Ins. Co.
Savio,
v.
see
supra;
224, supra.
note 33 at
33 at 1267.
England,
47. Boute v.
New
Verizon
see note 33 at
Co.,
51. Gibson v. ITT
Ins.
see note 33 at
Hartford
707, supra.
396, supra.
Hough
Ins.
Ltd., see note 33 at
Pacific
Southern Farm Bureau Cas.
supra;
Holland,
(Miss.1984).
469 So.2d
notes
supplied.]
omitted.
sured
failure to
a workers'
Rather,
premises
award.
it determined
The
indisputable
same
and undis-
that the
State Insurance Fund was a
state
puted
today. Only
Goodwin remain so
entity
immunity
entitled to
under the
injuries
Gov accidental
are covered
the Work-
Act,
ernmental Tort Claims
party
O0.8.2001 ers
Act. Third
benefi-
ciaries
seq.
enforce contract terms made for
et
and that the
could not
their
immunity
benefit. Bad faith breaches
by recasting
avoid the
issue
contractually
short,
cause as
In
Employees
based.
intentional
torts.
continue to be
Fehring was most
party
concerned with the immu
third
beneficiaries of the
com-
workers'
nity
governmental
agen
pensation
associated with a
employ-
insurance contract. These
cy-not
private
might
with whether a
insurer
ees should be allowed to
enforce
terms of
be held liable for
bring
a bad faith breach of a
the contract and to
suit in district court
policy.29
insurance
for the contract's bad faith breach.
noteworthy
Fehring
It is
that the author of
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING WITH
-
RESPECT TO THE PRE-AWARD HAN-
Fund,
State Ins.
2001 OK