Oklahoma Issues

Appeal Bond Reform: S.B. 2125 (2010)

Oklahoma|2010

Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay.

[…]

Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Appeal Bond Reform: HB 1603 (2009)

Oklahoma|2009

Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay

[…]

Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million. Eliminates bonding requirement to appeal a punitive damages judgment.

[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, June 2013.

Class Action Reform: S.B. 704 (2011)

Oklahoma|2011

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class

[…]

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class action lawsuits. Provides that an action may be maintained as a class action if the petition contains factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform: H.B. 1013 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Adopted the expanded federal rule as a foundation for class

[…]

Adopted the expanded federal rule as a foundation for class actions. Includes specific procedures and guides the court must follow in appointing an attorney to represent the class. Requires specific findings that must be included in an order certifying a class. Requires more specific information be included in the notice provided to potential class members if a class is certified. Calls for more specific court oversight of the case, particularly regarding dismissals and settlements. Limits non-resident membership in state class actions and allows the court to stay, transfer or dismiss a case if it should be heard in another court

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Forum non conviens: H.B. 1003 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Allows the court, upon a motion by either party or

[…]

Allows the court, upon a motion by either party or on its own, to decline jurisdiction, if in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, an action would be more properly heard in another forum.” The bill also outlines what the court shall consider in determining whether to grant a motion to stay, transfer or to dismiss an action.

[hide]

Forum non conviens: HB 1603 (2009).

Oklahoma|2009

Allows the court to move a case which should be

[…]

Allows the court to move a case which should be more properly heard somewhere else in the state, thus restricting “forum shopping.” Held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, June 2013.

[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Reforms

Jury Service Reform: S.B. 479 (2004).

Oklahoma|2004

Provides jurors the right to automatically postpone service one time.

[…]

Provides jurors the right to automatically postpone service one time. Reduced the length of service from a two-week term to no more than one day unless selected to serve on a jury. Limits jury service to once every two years. Creates a lengthy trial fund which compensates jurors up to $200 per day, starting on the eleventh day of service – the fund is to be financed by a $10 filing fee on all civil cases. Provides jurors employment protections by prohibiting employers from penalizing jurors who serve. Provides small business protections by allowing an employee of a small business to differ service if another employee from the same firm is already serving in the same period. Increases penalties for no-shows.

[hide]

Reforms View All »

Medical Liability Reform- Volunteer Legal Protection: S.B. 930 (2007)

Oklahoma|2007

Allowed charitable health care providers rendering professional services gratuitously to

[…]

Allowed charitable health care providers rendering professional services gratuitously to be exempt from legal liability.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability- Peer Review: H.B. 1007 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Clarifies that in medical peer review proceedings, peer review information

[…]

Clarifies that in medical peer review proceedings, peer review information shall be private, confidential, privileged and not subject to discovery. Also states that in any action brought against a health care facility involving possible negligence in hiring, or contract with, a health care professional, any information discovered pursuant to a claim of negligence against such health care facility shall not be admissible as evidence until a judge or jury has first found the health care professional to have been negligent in providing health care services to the patient I n such health acre facility.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Noneconomic Damages Reform- H.B. 2128 (2011), 23 Okl. St. § 61.2:

Oklahoma|2011

Reduces the limit on the amount of noneconomic damages that

[…]

Reduces the limit on the amount of noneconomic damages that may be awarded for noneconomic loss arising from a claim of bodily injury from $400,000 to $350,000. Does not impact damages such as lost wages, medical expenses and future loss of expected wages, and lays out exceptions to the limit in case of gross negligence, reckless disregard, intentional actions, or malicious conduct. Eliminates the establishment of the Health Care Indemnity Fund.

[hide]

Noneconomic Damages Reform: HB 1603 (2009)

Oklahoma|2009

Provides that in any civil action arising from a claimed

[…]

Provides that in any civil action arising from a claimed bodily injury, the amount of compensation which a trier of fact may award a plaintiff for noneconomic loss shall not exceed $400,000, except under certain circumstances.

[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, June 2013.

Reforms View All »

Evidence Admissibility Reform: H.B. 2023 (2011)

Oklahoma|2011

Outlines procedures for unpaid medical bills for personal injury cases.

[…]

Outlines procedures for unpaid medical bills for personal injury cases. Allows for payment to be made at the level of actual payment, not what was charged.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Collateral Source Rule Reform: SB 629 (2003): 63 O.S. § 1-1708.1D.

Oklahoma|2003

Permits Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments,

[…]

Permits Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, unless the court determines the payment is subject to subrogation or any other right of recovery.

[hide]

Reforms View All »

Product Liability: H.B. 3365 (2014)

Oklahoma|2014

Deals with rebuttable presumptions against liability for any manufacturer where

[…]

Deals with rebuttable presumptions against liability for any manufacturer where the product complied with mandatory safety standards or regulations adopted and promulgated by the federal government.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Product Liability Reform: S.B. 13 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

States that in a product liability action, a manufacturer or

[…]

States that in a product liability action, a manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if the product is inherently unsafe and known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer. Sets out the defenses to be used in such cases. For purposes of this section, the term “product liability action” does not include an action based on manufacturing defect or breach of the warranty. States tat in a product liability action, “if measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made an event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures in not admissible to prove a defect in a product, negligence, or culpable conduct in connections with the event.

[hide]

Reforms View All »

Punitive Damages Reform: SB 263 (1995)

Oklahoma|1995

Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive

[…]

Codifies factors that the jury must consider in awarding punitive damages. Provides that when a jury finds by “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant: (1) acted in “reckless disregard for the rights of others,” the award is limited to the greater of $100,000 or actual damages awarded; or (2) acted intentionally and with malice, the award is limited to $500,000; two times the award of actual damages; or the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant or insurer as a direct result of the conduct causing injury. The limit does not apply if the court finds evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally and with malice in conduct life‑threatening to humans.

[hide]

Challenged and Upheld

Gilbert v. Sec. Fin. Corp. of Okla., Inc., 152 P.3d 165 (Okla. 2006).

Prejudgment Interest Reform: SB 488 (1986).

Oklahoma|1986

Prohibits the assessment of prejudgment interest on punitive damages awards.

[…]

Prohibits the assessment of prejudgment interest on punitive damages awards. Sets the prejudgment interest rate at 4% above the U.S. Treasury Bill.

[hide]

Challenged and Upheld

Rodebush v. Okla. Nursing Homes, Ltd., 867 P.2d 1241 (Okla. 1993)

Miscellaneous

Reforms View All »

Volunteer Liability: S.B. 263 (1995)

Oklahoma|1995

Relieves volunteers who provide services to nonprofit organizations of liability

[…]

Relieves volunteers who provide services to nonprofit organizations of liability for punitive damages unless those volunteers are currently offering the same service for profit.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Offer of Settlement: S.B. 263 (1995)

Oklahoma|1995

Provides incentives for early settlement of a claim where the

[…]

Provides incentives for early settlement of a claim where the plaintiff demands or the defendant makes an offer of judgment in an amount over $100,000. The party refusing a reasonable offer as determined by the ultimate judgment, pays reasonable litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Latest News

View all news

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Public Nuisance Expansion in Landmark Opioid Case

Press Releases

2019 Opioid Ruling Overturned

Garland Should Oppose Biden Effort to Reinstate Controversial ‘Slush Funds’ Practice

In The News

Writing for The Hill, ATRA President Tiger Joyce discusses the Biden administration’s plans to allow a settlement slush fund and issues the practice has caused at the state level.

ATRA Warns Against ‘New Species of Super Tort’ in Oklahoma Opioid Judgment

In The News

Amanda Bronstad with Law.com writes about the potential repercussions if the 2019 $465 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson stands.

Appeal Bond Reform

Class Action Reform

Forum and Venue

Joint and Several Liability

Judgement Interest Reform

Jury Service Reform

Medical Liability Reform

Noneconomic Damages Reform

Phantom Damages Reform

Product Liability

Punitive Damages

Miscellaneous

Latest News

View all news

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Public Nuisance Expansion in Landmark Opioid Case

Garland Should Oppose Biden Effort to Reinstate Controversial ‘Slush Funds’ Practice

ATRA Warns Against ‘New Species of Super Tort’ in Oklahoma Opioid Judgment

Support for Johnson & Johnson’s Appeal In Massive Oklahoma Opioid Judgment

Tiger Joyce on Good Day Tulsa – Judicial Hellholes

Oklahoma Lands Spot as Judicial Hellhole