James P. Garrett

The case involved a minor child injured when equipment fell on her at a fitness center and her father, who sought payment of medical expenses under the center's insurance policy and then sued the insurer for bad faith after an eight-month delay in payment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs, as third parties to the insurance contract, lacked standing to bring a bad faith claim because they had no contractual or statutory relationship with the insurer. It reasoned that the policy's primary purpose was to protect the insured business owner's assets, making any benefit to injured third parties under the medical payments provision merely incidental, as established in prior cases like Rednour v. JC & P Partnership.

torts & liability

Ronald Wallace sued his former employer, Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma, Inc., alleging wrongful termination in breach of an employment contract purportedly formed by the company's employee handbook. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Oklahoma follows the at-will employment doctrine, which can only be altered by a definite employment contract, and the handbook contained only general, vague provisions without definite promises regarding termination procedures. Therefore, no contract existed, and Wallace's claim failed as a matter of law.

labor & employment

The case involved a contract dispute where Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management, Inc. served as a third-party administrator for the Oklahoma State Insurance Fund's workers' compensation claims under the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. Cunningham sued for unpaid amounts under the original $780 per claim rate for over 3,700 files, plus payments related to Murrah Building bombing claims and expert expenses, while the Fund argued the rate had been modified downward by agreement and that it had not approved the bombing work or expenses. The trial court granted partial summary judgment, reducing the per-claim rate and awarding Cunningham payment only for the bombing files and experts at the modified rate. On appeal, the court held that the Fund's Commissioner lacked authority to modify the contract without State Purchasing Director approval, as the relevant statutes did not create an exemption from the Central Purchasing Act, and affirmed the judgment except as modified by that ruling.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Bruce McKeever, who was injured in a car accident and had his driver's license revoked by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety after a blood alcohol test at the hospital showed a level of 0.15. McKeever petitioned the district court to vacate or modify the revocation, arguing he was not arrested, lacked capacity to consent due to his injuries and possible shock or unconsciousness, and that proper procedures were not followed for the test. The trial court upheld the revocation, and the appellate court affirmed, finding competent evidence that McKeever was arrested and capable of consenting, that the trooper properly administered the implied consent advisory, and that the blood sample was drawn correctly by a registered nurse using official equipment. The court applied an objective standard to evaluate consent and refusal, noting that conflicting medical testimony on McKeever's mental state was resolved by the trial court's assessment of witnesses, and that his lack of memory did not negate the evidence of consent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute under the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act where surface owners RL and Mary Jane Sanford sued Anadarko Petroleum Corporation for commencing drilling operations on their property without first reaching an agreement or petitioning the court to appoint appraisers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Sanfords, awarding treble damages, and the appellate court affirmed. The court interpreted the Act to require that, absent an agreement, the operator must file a petition for appraisers prior to entering the property with equipment, as indicated by the statute's language and related provisions emphasizing negotiation before operations begin. This construction aligns with the Act's goal of balancing the interests of surface owners and mineral operators.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Robert Stickney, who was terminated by Kansas City Life Insurance Company under an employment contract that allowed termination by either party with or without cause upon written notice. Stickney sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and various tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, deceit, fraud, and interference with business relationships, arguing that a company memorandum created an implied requirement of just cause or modified the contract. A jury awarded him $841,000 in actual damages and $841,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the contract was for at-will employment of indefinite duration, that vague oral assurances or memoranda about performance reviews could not rebut the at-will presumption or create a contractual claim for continued employment, and that no tort liability could arise from a permissible termination. The matter was remanded solely for determination of any unpaid commissions.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned a divorce between Walter and Lela Adams after five years of marriage, focusing on the enforceability of a mediated property settlement agreement that the wife later challenged as unfair and the product of undue influence. The trial court treated the agreement as a binding contract, incorporated it into the divorce decree without independent review for fairness, and denied the wife's motion for a new trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that under 43 O.S. Supp.1992 § 121, divorce courts must divide jointly acquired property in a just and reasonable manner and may not enforce settlement agreements absent approval after considering relevant factors such as the parties' contributions, assets, and financial circumstances. The court clarified that only the portions of an agreement incorporated into the judgment by the court are enforceable, and it directed further proceedings including a hearing on appellate attorney fees.

family lawproperty

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by John Spurgin against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (formerly the Special Indemnity Fund) for permanent total disability benefits arising from combined prior injuries in 1972 and 1976 (totaling 35.5% PPD) and a subsequent 1996 injury (41.8% PPD). The trial court awarded PTD but required that PPD payments from the employer first be completed before MITF payments could begin, calculating a waiting period based on the 1996 injury award. Spurgin appealed, arguing that the 1999 statutory amendments renamed the fund and changed the accrual date for PTD benefits to the order date without the waiting period. The court held that the law in effect at the time of the most recent injury controls, so the pre-amendment rules applied, and the fund's renaming did not alter the applicable statutory scheme or create retroactive changes for pending claims.

labor & employment

In this case, All Comp Construction Company, the general contractor for a building project, sued its subcontractor Roy Ford for breach of contract and negligence after Ford allegedly installed a septic system improperly, requiring All Comp to repair it at its own expense; All Comp also sought damages for mental stress and anguish. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that All Comp was not the real party in interest because it did not own the underlying property and that, as a limited liability company, it could not experience emotional damages. The court affirmed the denial of mental anguish damages, reasoning that an LLC is a fictional legal person incapable of suffering such harms, but reversed the dismissal on real-party-in-interest grounds. It held that All Comp had a sufficient interest as the party responsible to the owner and that, under 12 O.S.1991 § 2017(A), dismissal was improper without first allowing time for possible joinder or ratification by the property owner.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an insurance claim by Jadco Purchasing Corporation and a related entity for stolen crude petroleum that was denied by Federal Insurance Company. Shareholder John Armstrong and a successor corporation sued Federal alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, claiming emotional distress damages from the resulting loss in stock value. The trial court dismissed the claims, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that Armstrong was not a real party in interest, lacked contractual privity with the insurer, and could not extend the insurer's duty beyond the insured corporations to their shareholders. The court relied on precedents that stockholders cannot sue personally to redress wrongs against a corporation and that third-party extensions of the good-faith duty do not apply to corporate owners in this context.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the termination of Olin Boswell's parental rights to his child S.B., who had been adjudicated deprived and placed in state custody. The father appealed the trial court's order terminating his rights, arguing lack of proper notice, denial of a jury trial, and insufficient evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination, holding that the trial court erred by proceeding with a non-jury trial after the father had requested a jury trial through counsel. The court reasoned that once a jury trial is requested in a parental rights termination case, an express voluntary waiver is required, and the father's failure to appear personally did not constitute such a waiver when his attorney was present. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the right to a jury trial.

family lawprocedure

In Quantrill v. Warren, plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to require the state official to fly a Confederate States of America flag at the Oklahoma State Capitol under a 1988 Senate Joint Resolution directing display of various historical flags. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that the resolution imposed no enforceable duty. The core reasoning was that the measure was either an invalid special or local law due to missing verified publication proof under the Oklahoma Constitution or, alternatively, a general and permanent law repealed by its exclusion from the codified 1991 Oklahoma Statutes, leaving plaintiffs without a clear legal right to mandamus relief.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved homeowner Patti Barnes, who kept a 220-pound Vietnamese pot-bellied pig outdoors and sought a special zoning permit from the Bartlesville Board of Adjustment after a 1996 city ordinance amendment required prior approval for keeping animals other than dogs or cats. Neighbors testified about odor and flies from the pig interfering with their use of their properties, while Barnes and a veterinarian disputed that it created more nuisance than other pets. The Board denied the permit, the district court upheld the denial, and Barnes appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of nuisance and lack of a required grandfather clause under state law. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the Board's decision carried a presumption of correctness, the evidence supported a nuisance finding under the zoning regulations, and Barnes had not requested specific findings of fact or shown the use was not a nuisance.

property

The case involved a dispute over ownership of mineral interests in two parcels of land conveyed by the McCalebs to Arrowhead Homes via warranty deeds that included the phrase 'Less and except all mineral interests' after the warranty clause. Boswell Energy obtained an oil and gas lease from the McCalebs and sued to quiet title to the minerals and leasehold against PetroCorp and others who claimed leases from Arrowhead's grantees. The trial court granted summary judgment to the McCalebs and Boswell, quieting title in their favor. The appellate court reversed, holding that the deeds were ambiguous because the exception language appeared outside the granting clause, creating a material fact issue about the parties' intent that precluded summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings including consideration of extrinsic evidence.

property

The case involved a probationary teacher, Stephen Harjo, who was terminated by the Board of Education for alleged misconduct, including an altercation with a student's parent, breaching student confidentiality, and intimidating others. Harjo sued for breach of contract, claiming the school failed to provide required admonishment, an improvement plan, and time to correct deficiencies under school policies and the Admonishment Statute (70 O.S. Supp.1992 § 6-101.24). The trial court granted summary judgment to the school and denied Harjo's partial motion. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the statute's admonishment requirements apply only to cases of inadequate teaching performance, not misconduct, and that the specific procedures for dismissing probationary teachers control over the general provisions. The record showed no link between the dismissal and teaching deficiencies.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over the sale of a 1991 Lincoln Continental automobile by Bob Moore Cadillac to the Proctors under a contract contingent on credit approval, which was ultimately rejected; Moore repossessed the vehicle after demanding payment or return and sued for failure of consideration, unjust enrichment, and replevin, while the Proctors counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, emotional distress, and personal injury damages. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the purchase agreement, the matter went to arbitration, where the arbitrator denied all of the Proctors' claims in favor of Moore but also denied Moore's request for attorney fees and costs; the trial court affirmed the arbitrator's award without modification. On appeal by the Proctors and counter-appeal by Moore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denied Moore's motions for sanctions and dismissal based on the Proctors' procedural non-compliance, and resolved the counter-appeal as submitted on Moore's brief alone.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors seeking an injunction to stop Stone Casket Company from selling caskets directly to the public without a license under 59 O.S.1991 § 396.6 and related statutes. The trial court dissolved a temporary restraining order and declared the licensing requirements unconstitutional under the Oklahoma Constitution as applied to sellers who do not prepare remains. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the statutes are constitutional because they rationally further the state's legitimate interest in protecting public health, safety, and sanitation in the burial of human remains, as caskets are integral to funeral services. The court applied rational basis review under equal protection principles, finding no fundamental right or suspect class implicated, and directed entry of judgment for the Board including the injunction.

business & regulatory

In this workers' compensation case, a firefighter claimed he contracted hepatitis C through job-related exposures to infected individuals and sought benefits either as an occupational disease or a cumulative trauma injury. The trial court denied the claim, finding that hepatitis C does not qualify as an occupational disease under Oklahoma law because it does not develop gradually from conditions peculiar to firefighting, nor as cumulative trauma, which requires repeated micro-injuries over time. The appellate court agreed with those classifications but reversed and remanded, holding that the claim could proceed under an accidental injury theory from one or more specific exposures, even without identifying the exact incident, and that the trial court had failed to rule on compensability under that theory. The decision emphasized that mere exposure is insufficient but that proof of exposure leading to the disease can support a claim if it arises out of employment.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the Oklahoma Department of Transportation condemning property owned by Ronnie Oliver to widen a highway. After a jury awarded Oliver more than ten percent above the court-appointed commissioners' appraisal, he sought reimbursement for appraisal fees under state law. The trial court granted the fees, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding the fees were actually incurred by Oliver, that specific findings of fact were not required, and that the award was not an abuse of discretion. The court also granted appeal-related attorney fees.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a will contest in which the decedent's children challenged the probate of their father's will on grounds of improper execution and attestation under Oklahoma statute as well as undue influence by his surviving spouse, who had been his secretary and allegedly drafted the will and destroyed prior ones. The trial court admitted the will to probate after finding substantial compliance with execution requirements and that the contestants had not proven undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the testator's words and conduct satisfied the statutory mandates for publication and attestation, that a spousal relationship is a natural one for inheritance and does not by itself create an unrebutted presumption of undue influence, and that the trial court's findings were not against the clear weight of the evidence.

family lawpropertyprocedure