MEEKS v. GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY

air. ongoing Because the condition present leak case

сarbon monoxide isolated, sudden, temporary, In- coverage Air not exclude Exclusion

door does resulting injuries. Because the Indoor coverage,

Air exclusion did we exclude its whether enforcement

need address prohibited by strong public

would

policy of the state.

Conclusion question posed by 24 The the Unit- initial District for the States Western

ed public

District addressed whether Oklahoma prevent In-

policy would enforcement question Air Exclusion. Before

door answered, necessary it was

could be deter- Air Exclusion

mine what the Indoor exclud- Air The reach the Indoor Exclusion is

ed.

subject multiple interpreta- reasonable

tions; arguably apply only it could to either air,

permanent conditions or both tem-

porary permanent conditions of the air. provision subject multiple is

Because the consequently ambiguous,

interpretations and

it construed properly the insurer.

Accordingly, the Air Indoor Exclusion does coverage bodily injury

not exclude result- sudden,

ing from accidental leaks of carbon

monoxide.

Tracy MEEKS, Appellant,

GUARANTEE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Appellee. 113,752

No.

Supreme Court Oklahoma.

FILED: 02/28/2017 Bisher,

Rick RYAN BISHER' RYAN SIMONS, City, PHILLIPS & Oklahoma Oklahoma, for Appellant. Latham, Carter,

Bob Lindsey Brian Eliza- Albers, beth ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‍LATHAM STEELE WAGNER. LEHMAN, Tulsa, & for Appellee. Oklahoma ’Colbert, J.

¶ 1 appeal retained to reiterate proper application this Court’s decision Ins. Summers v. Zurich Am. 33, 565, monetary awards—al- though paid—not provided as ordered. Tо- day, reemphasizes that an order of (WCC) Workers’ clearly previously that ordered identifies finds insurer benefits and failed dem- that in, delay onstrate its or non- cause for with, compliance providing court ordered require- benefits satisfies the certification ments delineated Summers. Because the here, requirements were met employee may proceed on court his against bad-faith claim insurer for insurer’s alleged provide tempo- refusal to rary disability by total as ordered benefits the WCC.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2014, September 10, appellant, 2 On Tracy (Meeks), petition Meeks filed dis- appellee, alleging court trict Southside Recycling through (Employer), LLC its in- carrier, surance Insurance Co. Guarantee (Insurer), engaged in had in bad faith systematic pattern refusing practice temporary disability court ordered total (TTD) separate twenty-six occa- 2013, 17, sions, just support, In Meeks DECEMBER cause. TTD previously on various entered 24,

relied DECEMBER particular, Meeks orders WCC. 31, 2013, JANUARY DECEMBER proffered a Order that June WCC stated: JANUARY JANUARY determined, previously The Court 28, 2014, JANUARY was, ordered, claimant entitled 4, 2014 FEBRUARY temporary disability payments. total twenty-six separate for a total of occa- respondent such Court ordered sions. repeatedly respondent benefits and had penalties on Insur- The WCC assessed based comply Court’s failed with the orders. payment prior late TTD How- er’s awards. given respondent the op- The Court has ever, denied certification under portunity to its just respondent’s “due to carrier refusal or with the failure claimant, penalty requested paying said matter, respon- in this Court’s orders today.” healing to the satisfy its in that dent failed burden ¶ 3 Insurer its motion to filed dismiss regard resulting ordering contending lieu answer that Meeks failed respondent pay penalties and interest procedural requirements to follow the under 18, 2010, its APRIL AUGUST Act, the Oklahoma JANUARY SEPTEMBER commencing prerequisite to ac- AND JUNE OCTOBER Relying tion in district court. Insurer 2012 orders. Sizemore, alleged that a on Insurer Respondent comply to fail to continued premised only upon action a can be carrier’s payment order for with the Court’s tem outright refusal porary total benefits to claimant disability acknowledged that award. Insurer Meeks 2014, day and now on this 19th of JUNE sought pursuant certification WCC consideration, this for cause and af came 42(A), request to section but that was denied. counsel, hearing arguments of ter Summers, ¶ Relying 4 on the district court FOL Court and ORDERS AS FINDS finding Insurer’s motion to dismiss sustained LOWS: possess that Meeks a certification or did again, respondent THAT has 42(A) complying other order with section cause, just comply claimant failed Athough the Rule 58. district court acknowl- temporary disability payments total since 26, edged that the June 2014 Order WCC 12, the last 2012 on order OCTOBER findings made detailed of fact Insurer’s about following specific occasions: twenty-six separate failing occasions 24, 2012, DECEMBER good orders absent WCC 2012, DECEMBER 31 shown, court based its de- 2013, 7, 2013, 14, JANUARY JANUARY express nial on for denial certifi- WCC’s 21, 2013, JANUARY prior cation that all awards were satisfied hearing. appealed. to the WCC Meeks 28, 2013, 4,

JANUARY FEBRUARY 2013, again, presented 5 Once this Court is 2, 5, 2013, 2013, MARCH APRIL surrounding with the certification confusion procedures requirements pursuant 15, 2013, OCTOBER section the Workers’ 22, 2013, 29, OCTOBER OCTOBER Summers, еxplained Act 58 and Rule as 2013, 33, 565, 213 and set forth P.3d 12, NOVEMBER NOVEMBER 36, 142 v. Cas. 2006 Sizemore Cont’l OK 19, 2013, 2013 NOVEMBER confusion, here, compound P.3d 47. The was NOVEMBER by the fact that Meeks’ ed bad-faith claim DECEMBER alleged premised on Insurer’s failure to ordered, not on a claim of DECEMBER as benefits pro Thus, (2) unpaid unpaid benefits. retained or benefits have been reemphasize appeal vided as the two alter- ordered” without cause. Summers, 33, ¶ categories for native certification articulated 213 P.3d at Summers, Silljer added). (emphasis and reaffirmed v. or certification Mega der is jurisdiction Life and Health Ins. the vehicle that confers v, Mercy are: “that a final the' district court. Stewart Center, Inc., (1) ¶ 3, unpaid or Health award remains provided (2) (where have not or- reemphasized been as Summers, ¶ (em- procedural dered.” 213 P.3d at 568 conferring ju mandates for added). phasis risdiction on the district court a bad- benefits). unpaid

faith action for As STANDARD OF Summers, REVIEW delineated certification (1) procedures remaining differ awards appeal 6 The of this essence turns (2) unpaid provided benefits not or upon propriety of the district court’s dered. ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‍jurisdiction—purely question law. issues of Court reviews de novo without law Unpaid, Payment, Outright 1. The Late or legal rulings. to the lower deference court’s Pay Monetary Refusal tо Award Serv., Tcina, Inc., K H Inc. & Well 1219, 1223. 62, 9, 51 procedures unpaid, payment of, late insurer’s out

ANALYSIS right monetary refusal a final benefit ¶7 outset, At owing a district court employee award still are two fold: (1) may only jurisdiction exercise in an em must provided first utilize the mechanism 42(A)1 ployee’s bad-faith action or her Compensa his of the Workers’ (2) employer/insurer employee when that tion Act have the award certified Compen judgment an order of the obtained enforcement as a of the district certifying pursuant sation Court “that final work to Rule 58 of the Workers’ Summers, ers’ award remains either Court rules. 42(A), 1. Under section November shall beаr interest at the percentage applicable judgments rate to in civ- compensation payment A. If of or an install- pursuant il cases to Section Title 12 727 of of payment compensation ment due the under Upon filing the Oklahoma Statutes. the of the award, except of an terms in the case of an copy certified of the Court's award a writ of appeal of an award or an from the award process execution shall issue and shall be exe- Fund, Multiple Injury is Trust not made within taxed, cuted the cost thereof as in the case and (10) days ten after the same is due the execution, judgments of writs of оn of courts of employer therefor, or insurance carrier liable record, provided by as Title 12 of the Okla- may the Workers' Court order a Statutes; however, provided, provi- homa the copy certified of the be filed in the award to relating section sions execution and any county, office of the Court clerk of which process for the enforcement of awards shall be lump award whether accumulative or sum provisions are cumulative to other now and existing subject shall have the same force and be the may adopted or which hereafter be judgments same law of the district Court. as relating to liens or enforcement of awards or Any compensation payments awarded and all compensation. claims for thereof directed to be made order of the added). (emphasis Okla. tit. Stat. Court, except appeal in the case of an of an award or an award of from the 2. Rule 58 of Rules of the Oklahoma Workers’ Fund, Injuty Multiple Trust shall bear interest provides: (18%) eighteen percent per year rate of at the application directing paid by An for an order certifica- from the date ordered the Court until any compen- the date of satisfaction. On or November tion to district court of workers' after may paid be after to the ordered from sation award heard notice to be giv- Multiple Injury respondent and insurance carrier has been the Trust shall bear sim- Fund (10) ple only days percentage applica- en the scheduled interest at the at least ten before rate respondent judgments pursuant such trial the and ble in civil trial thereon. At cases opportu- be afforded an insurance carrier shall Section 727 Title 12 the Oklahoma Stat- good why application Any nity from date of to show cause the utes the the award. award granted. Multiple Injury prior should not be Trust Fund 42(A) ¶¶ 9-10, inquiry an 213 P.3d at 568. Section WCC’s surrounds insurer’s penal- prescribes assessing justi the conditions conduct and whether that conduct was entering provides an ties and the method fied. lump unpaid award, whether accumulative or If that the WCC determines sum, judgment 12. The on the rolls. Id. good cause, no certifi demonstrated insurer 42(A) policy is to behind section rationale However, if cation order will issue. the insur timely encourage payment workers’ com7 cause, good fails to er demonstrate awards,

pensation discourage non-com- mere identifying “certification order will issue pliance, provide a for en- mechanism provided not benefits which have been as judgment in district court. forcement of the The certification make ordered. order will Sizemore, ¶ 25, at 2006 OK 53- P.3d specific findings [of facts] to the basis for But, an insurer’s bad refusal that the court’s determination” the insurer beyond incentive. Id. Nota- award is good why failed demonstrate cause 42(A) contemplates bly, only section dollar Summers, award should not be certified. owing monetary on amount still award. ¶ 11, at OK 33 213 P.3d owing, by no is Consequently, amount where 42(A) terms, apply. not its section does See reemphasizes 11 This Court Summers, ¶33, 13, 569; 2009 OK at P.3d employee complied where 42(A). 85, § see also Stat. Okla. tit. 42(A) Rule and obtains certifying 9 In an award аs un finding that an WCC order award mone paid employer pursuant 42(A), to section tary unpaid good benefits remains (10) given and its insurer must be at ten least may cause, employee days notice the trial certification. (1) copy file the certification certified 2008). (Supp. Okla. ch. Rule 58 Stat. tit attached, order, with the award time, At that the insurer judgment proceed as a court opportunity shall be afforded an to show pursuant execution to section good why application for an order may the claimant a claim tort for the file directing certification the district Sizemore, insurer's faith. granted. not the insur should Id. Beсause ¶ 26, option, 142 P.3d 54. In the latter at duty er owes a to act in faith and deal unpaid the amount benefits listed fairly injured employee, towards the the in an element of order becomes why surer the burden to bears demonstrate damages the claimant’s in the bad faith provided as ordered. See were claim. Co., Christian Am. Home Assurance 904;3 Summers, ¶¶ 25-26, ¶ 12, 2009 OK 33 at 569. Good Republic patently employee win v. Old Ins. It is clear that an Century 431;4 required pursue also Badillo v. Mid to first execution of that see Thus, judgment Ins. in district court P.3d 1080. before eommenc- 85, 4, 2008). (Supp. duty good implied-in-law Okla. "[I]nsurer's Stat. tit ch. Rule 58 faith ' to all dealings types and fair extends insurance Co., 3. In Christian v. Am. Home Assurance 1977 companies policies.... insurance in- [This] and 899, 904-05, 25-26, ¶¶ OK 141 577 P.2d employers’ cludes workers' and Court employee, by liability insurance.... who approve[d] adopted the insur- and rule that an third-party beneficiary made statute is a implied duty fairly er act in has an deal and insurance, is in the same workers' good faith its insured and that the viola- with may expect prompt pay- class as an insured gives duly tion of in tort this rise an action' good ment of claim unless the insurer in his/her and, consequential proper for which contesting faith asserts a basis for it.... ‘Unwar- case, sought.... punitive, damages ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‍may be delayfc] precise precipitates the economic ranted judicial per se Resort to a forum is bad sought hardship by purchase the insured to avoid dealing part faith or insur- unfair of the ” Goodwin, 10-11, 13, ¶¶ policy.' of the 828 P.2d regardless er tire suit. the outcome of Rath- Christian, ¶ (citing er, at 434 1977 OK 577 liability imposed may only tort where such, 903). may at As an insurer P.2d be liable showing there is a that the insurer unrea- clear faith, statutorily for ¶ set sonably, payments more than the recoveries. Id. bad withholds at of the claim of its P.2d 434-35. insured. ¶ 14, mg a action. at in tort judged by bad-faith Id. 213 P.3d and will be the same stan applicable 569. dard to the bad-faith by conduct Sizemore, any other insurer. 2006 OK 2. Benefits not as Provided Ordered ¶ 25, 142 P.3d at 54. ¶ 12 category second cer employee 14 An seeking certifica provided tification—benefits not or as tion category under the second for nonmone- any award, dered—applies to benefits wheth tary bypass benefits will as nonmonetary monetary. er or “Benefits” is unpaid-benefit there no is amount certify. generally monetary defined to include 42(A). Rather, See Okla. Stat. tit. that nonmonetary Parret awards. See v. UNICCO employee proceed directly should to a Rule ¶ 20, Serv. 2005 OK 127 P.3d (10) hearing providing after at least ten 578. It is well that an insurer a settled has days employer notice to the and the insur statutory duty promptly provide pursuant carrier ance to Rule At 58. the time statutory duty benefits. That hearing, a certification order will issue if exists, monetary nonmonetary, whether or good the insurer fails to demonstrate cause. provision pursu and includes the of benefits That order must recite the insurer’s failure by ant to the Fail terms dictated WCC. cause, good identify demonstrate precipitates precise ure to do so economic benefits, authorized and state that such bene hardship upon employee employ that the provided fits were not as ordered. rule sought purchase policy. er to avоid of the applicable is employee judi whether an seeks Christian, P.2d at See nonmonetary award, cial relief for a e.g., cases, In most comply a failure to with court- benefits, medical an where benefits, unpaid, late, ordered whether or an with, comply satisfies, failed to ultimately but refusal, outright inherently subsumed See, e.g., monetary WCC award benefits. category this qualifying second for certifica Silljer Mega Life and Health Ins. tion. (where 213 P.3d 1156 that the record was de Summers, Court held void order WCC “which certifies that “encompasses an insurer’s bad Sizemore previously wage awarded medical or benefits any (1) provide faith refusal to benefits which provided ordered, not been have as and dem have been in a final of the ordered order good no onstrates Insurer’s failure (2) Compensation Court and have so”). to do having provided been certified as not been as ¶ 15 In the context of an Summers, insurer’s 33, ¶ 9, ordered.” refusal to with the terms at An insurer’s bad-faith refusal monetary award—although benefits ulti satisfying prongs benefits one and mately paid—as alleged here, employee an give two articulated Summers rise to will only compliance need demonstrate Rule independent, common-law-tort action indicating 58 and obtain a оrder Gray, Id.; district court. see also Martin v. “(1) in a have been ordered final (a order the Workers’ tort). presents independent claim Such (2) having ... have been certified 'as conduct, good cause, reckless absent creates ordered,” provided that the been reasonable inference that reason insurer failed to demonstrate cause for obey the insurer’s in failure award obey its failure to the WCC orders. Sum Summers, 14, comply. volves a refusal to mers, 213 P.3d at 568. So, just outright at 569. as an refusal ¶ pay monetary purview beyond award is the 16 From time that TTD the benefits 42(A), of section matter, a wilful or intentional refusal in became this Insurer an due had provide beyond to duty benefits as the ordered affirmative to ensure that such benefits statutory paid in of timely remedies found the Workers’ were under the terms the Compensation Resultantly, hearing, Act. an insur After notice and the Id. award. WCC complying any expressly “respondent again, that er’s bad-faith conduct with just cause, comply pay injured employee to failed to to benefits awarded lies without disability payments policy underlying rational temporary total mers and the the claimant ... last of October Act. since the order Oklahoma Workers’ (26) twenty-six separate of occa- for a total ORDER RE- DISTRICT COURT good refusing pay for tо sions.” Absent cause VERSED; REMANDED CAUSE FOR pursuant to the terms of the the benefits WITH CONSISTENT PROCEEDINGS award, subjected Insurer will be to a bad- THIS OPINION. need faith action district court. The WCC only make a determination that Insurer Combs, C.J., Gurich, (by separate V.C.J. comply with WCC orders and failed Edmondson, Watt, writing), Kauger, Colbert good to demonstrate Insurer failed concur; Reif, JJ., satisfy certification sufficient the which is requirements. This Court that it holds did. Winchester, J., (by separate dissents 17 The test articulated Summers does writing); impose magical not of words in satis- the use J., Wyrick, present not Here, requirements. fying the certification participating. expressly held that In- the WCC found and benefits, pay repeatedly wаs surer ordered Gurich, V.C.J., specially concurring: ordered, pro- failed to do so as and did majority 1 I concur with the but write just cause for its failures. Insurer’s ac- vide emphasize separately appalling con- the place squarely scope it of tions within the filing that of this action. On duct led category for second certification articulated 26, 2008, Appellant Tracy June Meeks suf- findings in Summers. the breadth and Given on-the-job injury with Order, fered Southside the June WCC Recycling, who was insured the Defen- is, fact, holds WCC Order certified By Company. or- dant Guarantee Insurance order for Insurer’s failure to April der Mr. Meeks was as ordered. benefits, tеmporary disability total awarded CONCLUSION payable per at rate of 299.00 week for $ period of than 156 weeks. On more twen- Although the June 2014 WCC (26) ty-six occasions, Guarantee Insurance employee’s Order denied re- for refused benefits. Counsel Mr. quest for certification as paid had multiple trips Meeks was forced to make penalties prior hearing, to the that order pay- the court to seek additional orders recognized satisfied the certification second penalty included a 15% ment. Some orders category pro- under Summers—benefits not pattern interest. continued sev- as ordered. This Court holds that vidеd years. eral Order, finding June Insurer twenty-six separate on violation occa- 2 On June Com- Workers’ duty previously sions its Existing pensation Court of Claims1 issued cause, TTD authorized benefits absent arrearages, finding final order prerequisites satisfies certification Insurance had failed to ben- Guarantee commencing a bad-faith action 8,940.10 jus- in the efits amount $ court. eventually claim tifiable reason. ¶ Having period years, found that For a of over four Meeks satisfied the settled. Summers, requirements ignored habitually Insurance val- Guarantee Court holds the district erred in id court benefits. The facts of court orders granting outrageous, exаctly this is Insurer’s motion dismiss lieu this case are Barring pursuing why Meeks from the reason a claimant must have a answer. remedy spite claim Insurer for Insurer’s common law faith. gamesmanship clearly flagrant multiple crafty violates Sum- violations orders Supp. Workers' Court is See O.S. 1. The now Claims. 85A Existing Compensation Court of 2014, spanning period pay a from 2010 to An over insurer’s failure a valid final award merely in Guarantee Insurance held to -a was claimant in a workers’ com- contempt penalties pensation proceeding simply and assessed and inter- is compen- not a again. injury over contemplated est over and Thе dissent would sable in the workers’ compensation compensation not allow workers’ insurance scheme. A bad faith claim providers against to be sued for bad faith compensation because a workers’ is insurer separate Compensation apart employer/em- Workers’ Court has the from and power contempt ployee to sanction relationship failure to and does not arise pay statutory scope the award. But the court’s employment.6 course and In YWCA City Melson, power clearly nothing did 81, sanction to de- of Okla. v. 1997 OK 944 P.2d case, 304, wrongful ter the conduct and this discovery go Court fоr- allowed § the dissent’s citation to 73 of the Adminis- against ward a court action a Act, Compensation trative Workers’ which compensation group workers’ self-insurance 1, February 2014, went into effect cannot pay the bad faith failure to an award.7 apply injury to this ease because date ¶4 2006, In v. Sizemore Continental 25, was June 2008.2 Guarantee Insurance’s Casualty Co., 36, 47, intentional, conduct continued evidenced ma- unequivocally Court action for stated an licious, pay bad faith multiple and refusal to pay bad faith is available for a failure valid awards, payment of and neither the the ar- compensation workers’ award. The Court ful- rearages penalty and nor the settlement ly previous discussed the inconsistencies as a bar to an action for stands bad faith. and cases concluded that the exclu- neither 2002,3 remedy 3 Prior to little provision there was doubt Com- sive of Workers’ wrongfully pensation that a claimant who procedure was denied Act nor the certification benefits after a final preempted award the Workers’ a bad faith O.S. Compensation pursue against bad claim insur- Court could a workers’ general ease in a court of process the insurer er. The further clar- was Republic jurisdiction.4 Both Goodwin v. Old American Insur- ified Summers v. Zurich Co., Co., 34, 33, Insurance 1992 OK 828 and ance 2009 OK 213 P.3d 565. The Fidelity Co., abundantly Anderson v. U.S. that it Guarantee Court made it clear would interpret 1997 OK 948 P.2d made clear that 42 to nonsensical Section permission intentional acts statutorily require party are excluded from seek Compensation bring the Workers’ Act. “If an em- Workers’ Court ployee injured by an insurer’s bad faith- common action for In the case law bad faith. us, pay example, intentional failure to benefits under before the order of the award, employee merely has a law ac- con- common Court tion in tort under the Christian doctrine.”5 firmed the facts that were well known general alleged 2. "The rule is in effect at the of the law tiff a bad faith refusal employee’s injury time of an controls in workers' insurance carrier to award King Mfg. Meadows, compensation matters.” jury of medical returned a verdict benefits. 127 P.3d 589. 200,000 500,000 punitive $ $ dam- actual ages. company did not defendant insurance v, Kuykendall Aerospace 3. Gulfstream Tech- appeal. nologies., P.3d 374 DeAnda Insurance, AIUv. 2004 OK 98 P.3d Goodwin, 5. 435. P.2d at signaled change long a dramatic from standing availability ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‍law on the of a bad faith arising action from failure to a workers' Id., 12, 6. 828 P.2d at 435. The Court reasoned that 85 award. prevent employers O.S. was sufficient In Whitson Farmers Union Mutu- v. Oklahoma failing legal insurance from their carriers al Insurance 1995 OK 889 P.2d 285 and obligations. The illustrate the facts this case Anderson, logic. fallacy of that Supreme Court clarified that faith claim is a valid award. cannot arise after there until Court, Relying Supreme on case law from the Cooper See also Union Fire Ins. Huntington v. Nat'l in October of the case of Susan Indemnity Co., CJ-98-7765, 1996 OK CIVAPP 921 P.2d 1297. v. Reliance National (Okla. Ct.), Cnty. tried to Dist. verdict. Plain- 288 Court, by Compensation

parties: intention- the Workers’ such that Guarantee Insurance ally just “invites, to make encourages gives refused and and viabili- refusal payments to of Mi-. required the detriment ty by injured to a bаd faith claim the and paid Although Insurance Meeks. Guarantee Sizemore, 36, 142 unpaid worker.” 2006 OK arrearages penalty purge the and as a ¶ 1). J., (Taylor, concurring 47 P.3d being contempt to held in of amount avoid may payment in its de- court and use such WINCHESTER, J., dissenting:' claim, payment of the bad the fense prevent bringing cannot Meeks from his Mr. ¶ judge 1 The law used the administrative in court. bad faith claim the district statutory power to appropriate assure the ¶ of tort of essence the “[T]he intentional insurer/employer paid or- the what regard to insurance indus bad faith with the question insurer/employ- Without the dered. unreasonable, try is the insurer’s required pay that in amount. As er conduct, including unjustified withholding the ease, judge penalty the and the assessed policy....” payment of due under a McCor paid, including pen- ordered was the amount Co., kle Atlantic Ins. 1981 OK v. Great alty. principle I would reinforce the the faith, 21,637 In P.2d 587. breach bad judge contempt power has the to insure com- case, delay of contract insurance the refers judge’s depart pliance with the I orders. diligent duty act in a manner an insurer’s majority expanding faith” to in “bad negotiation, investigation, in relation de compensation proceedings. workers’ fense, being of and settlement claims made against a, In faith claim the insured.8 ¶2 my I continue to hold as ex view insurer, compensation a workers’ pressed in the dissent attached to Sizemore unjustifiable prove delay in claimant must Co., 36, 142 Casualty v. Continental consequences payment of of an award. In that I that I P.3d 47. ease stated would of the actual delay the the basis dama form consistently principal to the hold ges.9 correct Court was Kuykendall Aerospace v. both Gulfstream recognized a it first common Goodwin when Technologies, 2002 OK 66 P.3d and tort insurance law action for an earner’s bad Insurance, v. AIU Deanda compensa refusing faith in G.S.2001, provided § 1080. Title 85 P.3d tion award. Sizemore remedy the for failure under the by correctly overruling reaffirmed the law of to the terms the award claimant. Kuykendall contrary decisions to the and wrongful delay pay remedies for exclusive Today’s squarely Deanda. fits within decision by pay, provided ment or refusal to which is of the Goodwin Sizemore line cases. the exclude statutes compensation insurer When a workers’ re common-law fuses to and ordered remedies. awarded Century payments 8. awarded and all thereof Badillo v. Mid Ins. Court, by except to be of directed made order appeal in the case of аn of an award.... shall delay precipitates precise 9. “Unwarranted eighteen percent of bear interest at the rate sought hardship economic the insured to avoid (18%) per year paid from the date ordered by purchase policy.” die of Christian Am. Upon of Court until the date satisfaction ... Home Assurance filing copy of the certified of the Court's award a process of shall be writ execution shall issue and taxed, in the executed the cost thereof as 42(A), provided perti- 1. Title 85 O.S. execution, judgments of of of case writs part: payment nent "If of or an record, provided by of 12 of the payment courts Title installment due under Statutes; however, provided, pro- the terms of an award ... is not within ten Oklahoma made (10) days relating after the same is due visions of this section execution therefor, or insurance carrier liable process shall be for the enforcement awards may order a to be copy certified provisions aw.ard now exist- and are to other cumulative any county, in the court clerk of filed office relating ing may adopted or hereafter be which lump which or sum award whether accumulative liens or enforcement of awards claims subject shall have force to the the same compensation. judgments Any same law as court. majority opinion toppling 3 The continues allow the essence the tradeoff.” providers ben- [Footnotes omitted.] Workers efits be sued bad faith. Deanda, 54, ¶ 5, at (Opala, concurring). J. concurring opinions In one the two ¶ Deanda, Justice Boudreau wrote: Opala Justice in a continued footnote with this observation: Legislature designed “The Oklahoma “Exposing compensation workers’ carri- compensation system as a our workers’ liability ers to for delictual bad faith would fast, way employ to compensate efficient lawyers forcе to hire insurers to defend job injuries. ees for accidental on the The litigation. a new class Carriers compensation system is a com also would have to the risk of assume prehensive statutory to fix scheme com losing satisfying potentially eases and pensation for, to, medical care large uncontemplated verdicts. This liabili- employees. Soloray, Caffey covered ty passed employers be on to in would the pro quid It is a OK 874. premiums. form of insurance increased quo employer/carrier between the and the employers costs to added would employee. employeе gives up right disrupt equilibrium turn costs and tort, gaining remedy to sue in a certain benefits that the Workers irrespective exchange, of fault. Id. In promised Act to maintain.” high litigation cost of avoids the Deanda, 54, n.11, possible judgments. Upton v. 98 P.3d at n. excessive J, Corrections, Dept. (Opala, concurring). State ex. rel. 46, 9 P.3d judge law 6 The administrative has been given citing power carrier con- implement bargain, Legisla- “To tempt noncompliance judg- with final compensation ture the workers’ established Commission ment when the carrier remedy system as the em- exclusive an uncontroverted refuses medical or job suffer on the ployees who accidental expense. The related Administrative Work- injuries. remedy Under the exclusive doc- Act, provides ers’ Section 732 trine, compensation replace em- part: pertinent ployers/carriers’ liability tort for work-re- any person attending any pro- party “If or injuries.” accidental lated ceeding ... before the Commission refuses ¶¶ Deanda, 2-3, at 1090 any judgment of an final (Boudreau, concurring). J. judge administrative or the Commis- law concurring opinion 4 In the other found willfully sion or refuses an uncon- Deanda, Opala opined: Justice expense or with- troverted medical related forty-five days respondent after the very employer’s “The reason an and an statement, person received the insurer’s status-based and contract-based party, at of the the discretion administra- immunity liability from tort are cotermi- Commission, judge may tive law or the be stems, part, equity’s prin- nous in contempt found to be of the Commission Insurers, ciple subrogation. who are may subject to a not to fine exceed by agreement that calls for bound 10,000.00).” ($ Ten Dollars Thousand insured, agree of the indemnification encourage shoes and I administra- stand the insured’s assume While would compensation judges pow- contempt the sum total of the tive to use their latter’s law statute, responsibility. To that a workers’ ers I would hold consistent with this immunity from in the insurer’s tort find that the district court cause now granting in- liability is not before this erred coterminous with immunity “crafty employer’s insured own surer’s motion to But would dismiss. willfully refusing abrogate protection by gamesmanship” the latter’s indeed by the removing bargain’s very pedestal as ordered administra- Okla.Sess.Laws, ary 2. c. eff. Febru- remedied, only judge can be

five law penalty in the workers’ interest statutes, a fine for but also 10,000.00.

contempt up to $ respectfully Accordingly, I dissent. and Cheri

Susan SPENCER Petitioners,

Chandler, WYRICK, Respondent.

Justice Patrick 115,765 No.

Case

Supreme Court Oklahoma.

FILED MARCH 2017

Ryan Kiesel, Brady Henderson, D. R. Oklahoma, City, ACLU of Oklahoma Okla- homa, Attorneys for Petitioners Leader, Special ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‍Attorney Neal Assistant General, General, Attorney Office of the Oklahoma, City, Attorney for Oklahoma Re- spondent

Case Details

Case Name: MEEKS v. GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Feb 28, 2017

Citation: 392 P.3d 278

Docket Number: 113,752

Court Abbreviation: Okla.