John B. Doolin

In McCoy v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., a homeowner sued his insurer for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied his fire loss claim for the home and personal property, asserting defenses including arson, material misrepresentations, and increased hazard. Following a bifurcated trial, the jury awarded contractual damages plus actual and punitive damages on the bad faith claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed the contract verdict with a credit for payments to the mortgagee but reversed the bad faith verdict and attorney fees award. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reinstated the jury verdict on bad faith, finding competent evidence that the insurer lacked a reasonable good faith belief for withholding payment, affirmed the contract award as modified by the credit, and reduced the attorney fees to a reasonable sum.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether a 1984 amendment to the John T. Griffin Revocable Trust should be reformed to remove language that prevented Trust A from qualifying for the federal estate tax marital deduction under IRC Section 2056(b)(7). After the grantor's death in 1985, the IRS determined that the surviving spouse's income interest was contingent on the executor's election and thus ineligible for the deduction, leading to a proposed tax deficiency. The trial court granted reformation by deleting the problematic language ab initio, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, finding that undisputed testimony from the drafting attorneys and the estate's tax filings established the grantor's intent to maximize the marital deduction and that the language resulted from a scrivener's error. The court held that the evidence satisfied the requirements for reforming the trust to reflect that intent.

taxesproperty

In Lacy v. Schlumberger Well Service, a workers' compensation claimant alleged lung and respiratory injuries from prolonged chemical exposure during employment, which the employer contested with medical evidence including a doctor's testimony attributing the issues to asthma unrelated to the job. The trial court denied the claim after admitting the employer's evidence over an objection limited to its probative value. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the medical testimony lacked sufficient probative value to support the denial. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the appellate court could review the evidence's probative value despite the narrow objection at trial, clarifying the distinction between objections to evidentiary admissibility (competency) and legal sufficiency (probative value) under the any-competent-evidence standard of review from Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital and related workers' compensation rules.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing a Catholic priest and two dioceses for alleged sexual abuse during counseling sessions from 1967 to 1970, claiming her multiple personality disorder from prior childhood abuse had repressed her memories of the incidents until they surfaced in therapy in 1987. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Tenth Circuit by holding that neither the plaintiff's multiple personality disorder nor the discovery rule tolled Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The court reasoned that state law did not recognize the disorder as a legal disability extending the filing deadline and that the discovery rule did not apply to this clerical negligence action where the plaintiff lacked conscious knowledge of the abuse until years later, rendering the 1988 complaint time-barred.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Albert Bond, who had been awarded permanent disability benefits after losing both legs, sought an order requiring his former employer and insurer to replace rather than repair his prosthetic legs due to wear and changes in his condition. The trial court granted the replacement request after a hearing where the employer presented evidence favoring repair, but then denied Bond's subsequent application for attorney fees based on an alleged unreasonable denial. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the denial of fees, holding that the employer had a statutory right under 85 O.S. § 15 to a hearing on the necessity of replacement, presented competent evidence supporting its position, and did not act without reasonable grounds under 85 O.S. § 30 or in bad faith under the American Rule, so no abuse of discretion occurred in denying fees.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a minor student who sued a school district for negligence after being injured by a truck while crossing a highway during a supervised school activity; the district was not sued alongside the truck driver and defended in part by attempting to show the driver's negligence. At trial the district called the driver as a witness and, over objection, elicited testimony about his conviction for speeding from the same incident, after which the jury found for the district. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that evidence of a non-party witness's criminal conviction arising from the same facts is inadmissible in a subsequent civil action when timely objected to. The court applied long-standing precedent that bars such evidence because of the fundamental differences between criminal and civil proceedings in parties, burdens, and issues, finding no applicable exception on these facts.

proceduretorts & liabilitycriminal law