 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fehring v. State Insurance Fund2/6/2001
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE BYRON C. DIXON, TRIAL JUDGE
Appellants (injured worker and spouse) sued appellee, State Insurance Fund (SIF) in tort for failure to timely pay a workers' compensation award. The trial court gave summary judgment to SIF, ruling: 1) in that appellants had to prove SIF employees acted in bad faith to have a viable claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and 2) the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O. S. 1991, § 151 et seq., as amended, only allows liability against a state agency for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment, which includes a good faith requirement, the GTCA provided immunity to SIF. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed the immunity ruling, but a majority of the COCA panel went on to decide SIF was still potentially liable on a contractual theory for the same damages potentially recoverable in tort, but for the GTCA immunity. Both appellants and SIF sought certiorari. We hold: 1) SIF is entitled to GTCA immunity and 2) the immunity cannot be avoided merely by recasting appellants' tort theory of liability into a contractually-based theory of liability.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
We decide whether the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O. S. 1991, § 151 et seq., as amended, immunizes appellee, State Insurance Fund (SIF), from liability for the alleged post-award bad faith conduct of failure to timely pay a workers' compensation award. Like the trial judge, who gave summary judgment to SIF based on GTCA immunity, and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) that upheld the immunity, we hold SIF is entitled to GTCA immunity.
In addition, we must decide if a majority of the COCA panel erred by going on to rule SIF was still amenable to suit in contract and subject to liability for the same damages potentially recoverable in tort, but for the GTCA immunity. As to this ruling, we hold the COCA majority erred. The damages recoverable under a tort theory of liability for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing are not coextensive with damages recoverable under a contractual theory. Further, to allow appellants, Ralph Fehring (injured worker) and Dorothy Fehring (spouse) to proceed on a contractual theory would thwart and/or eviscerate the exclusivity provisions of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), 85 O. S. 1991, § 1, et seq., as amended. Simply, appellants may not avoid the GTCA immunity provided to SIF merely by recasting their tort theory of liability into a contractually-based one. Thus, the COCA majority erred by reversing in part the trial court judgment and remanding for further proceedings. Instead, the trial court judgment should have been affirmed because, as the trial judge ruled, SIF was entitled to summary judgment.
PART I. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo [Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053] because the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no material disputed factual questions exist. Id. An appellate court, like a trial court, examines the pleadings and evidentiary materials submitted by the parties to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. Just as in the trial court, all inferences and conclusions drawn from the evidentiary materials are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. The de novo review is a plenary, independe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|