A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r5,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT C L A R A A . S IM S , an in d iv id u a l,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. G RE A T A M ER I CA N LI FE I N SU R A N C E C O . , s ued as : T he G r eat A m e ri c a n L ife In s u ra n c e C o m p a n y ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5109 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CV - 5 8 3 - K) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e TY M KOVI CH , M c KAY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

C l ar a Si m s br oughta pet i t i on s eeki ng damages forbr eac h of contr actand b ad fa ith ag ains t G rea t A m erican L ife In su ran ce C o m p an y(G rea t A m erican ), a f ter G re a t A m e ric a n re f u se d to p a ylife in su ra n c e p ro c e e d s fo llo w in g th e d e a th of M s . Si m s ’ hus band. A j ur yaw ar ded M s . Si m s $300, 000 i n actual damages onI n herdi s t r i ctcour tr epl ybr i ef on the fe e i s s ue, M s . Si m s adj us t ed the 1 over al l amount s oughtt o $187, 439. 50.

- 2- h e r b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t cla im , an d $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 in a c tu a l d a m a g e s a n d $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in puni t i ve damages on herbad fa i t h cl ai m . G r eatA m er i can appeal ed the j udgm ent in fa v o r o f

M s . S im s e n te re d o n th e ju ry v e rd ic t. I n t he meant i m e, M s . Si m s m oved i n the di s tr i ctcourtforatt orney ’ s fee s pur s uantt o O kl a. St at . t i t . 36, § 3629( B ) . Sect i on 3629( B ) pr ovi des that“[u] pon a j udgm entr ender ed t o ei t herparty ” on a c l ai m fori ns ur ance benef i t s , “cos t s and at t or neyfee s s hal l be al l ow abl e t o the pr evai l i ng party . ” M s . Si m s cont ended that s he w as ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d of att or ney ’ s fee s on both herbr eac h of contr actand bad fai t h cl ai m s , and s ought a t ot al aw ar d of $189, 362 i n fee s . G r eatA m er i can 1 obj ect ed t o herr eques tforan aw ar d of thatpor t i on of the fe es s he had e xpended to o b tain a v e rd ict o n h e r b a d fa ith c laim , co n ten d in g th a t eith e r th e b a d fa ith r ecove r yw as a doubl e r ecove r yof heri ns ur ed l os s , ort hatt he “c or e el ement ” of h er d am ag es, giv ing ri se to the a w ard u n d er § 3 6 2 9 (B ), w as n o t prese n t i n the to rt c la im . See Taylorv. Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. , 981 P. 2d 1253, 1256 ( O kl a. 1999) ( “R ecove r yauthor i zed by§ 3629( B ) embra ces both contr act - and t or t - r el at ed theor i es of l i abi l i t ys o l ong as t he ‘ cor e el ement ’ of the damages s oughtand aw ar dedis co m p o sed o f th e ins u red loss.”) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). A m ag istrate jud g e a ssign ed to the issue o f a tt o rne y ’s fe es p rep are d a re p o rt and recom m end at i on propo si ng that M s. S i m s be aw arded $ 17 1, 45 6 as a- 3-

re a so n a b le a tto rn e y ’s fe e u n d e r § 3 6 2 9 (B ). T h is fig u re in c lu d e d fe e s a ttribu tab le t o t he bad fai t h cl ai m . T he magi s tr at e j udge, how ever , di s al l ow ed ce r t ai n fee s for o th e r re a so n s, a n d re d u c e d th e a m o u n t re q u e ste d b yM s. S im s. In its o bjec tio n s to th is re p o rt, G re a t A m e ric a n a g a in c o n ten d e d th a t M s. S im s w a s n o t en tit led to fee s forpr evai l i ng on t he bad fai th cl ai m . T he di s tr i ctcour tr ej ect ed G r eat A m erican ’s arg u m en t con ce rnin g fe es fo r th e tort claim , su stai n ed in p art M s . Si m s ’ obj ect i ons t o t he magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i ons , and ent er ed a fee a w a rd in th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 7 6 ,3 7 8 .6 0 . G re a t A m e ri c a n a p p e a le d . O n N o v em b er 7 , 2 0 0 6 , ac ti n g o n G rea t A m erican ’s m erit s ap p ea l, this co u rt e n te re d a n o p in io n re v e rs in g th e u n d e rl y in g ju d g m e n t in p a rt . S i ms v . Gr e a tA m. Li f e Ins . C o. , ___ F. 3d ___, N o. 04- 5135, 2006 W L 3200866 ( 10th C i r . N ov. 7, 2 0 0 6 ). W h ile th e p a n e l u p h e ld th e a w a rd o f d a m a g e s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t, s ee i d. at*21, i tr ever s ed the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on t he bad fai t h cl ai m , r eas oni ng t hati ns uffi ci entevi dence of bad fai th had bee n p re s e n te d to s u s ta in th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t o n th a t c la im . Id. at*18- *20. T he pane l a lso re v e rse d th e p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd , h o ld in g th a t itc o u ld n o t sta n d a b se n t a fi ndi ng of bad fai t h, and thati n anyevent , G r eatA m er i can’ s conductdi d not demonstr at e the ki nd of fr aud orevi l i nt entr equi r ed t o s us t ai n a puni t i ve damages a w a rd . Id. a t * 2 0 . M s. S im s is th e re fo re n o lo n g e r th e “ p re v a ili n g p a rty ” a s to t h e b a d fa i t h c l a i m.- 4-

T her e r emai ns t he i s s ue of how t o adj us tthe att or ney ’ s fee aw ar d for M s . Si m s ’ appel l at e l os s on t he bad fai th cl ai m . G r eatA m er i can r efe r s us t o an i t emi zat i on i tpr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ctcourt , i n w hi ch i tconcl uded thatthe a tto rn e y ’s fe e s re late d to th e b a d fa ith c laim a m o u n ted to $ 1 9 ,7 4 9 . It req u e sts t hatw e s i m pl ym odi fyt he aw ar d bys ubtr act i ng thatamount . W e conc l ude, h o w e v e r, th a t w e sh o u ld in ste a d re m a n d fo r f u rth e r d istric t co u rt sc ru tin yo f th is i s s ue. O k lah o m a law p e rm its o n lyth o se a tto rn e y ’s fe e s th a t re a so n a b ly c o n tr ib u te d to th e re c o v e ry o f M s . S im s ’ i n s u re d lo s s . See Taylor , 981 P. 2d at 1 2 5 6 (sta tin g re c o v e ryo f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s u n d e r § 3 6 2 9 (B ) “ e m b ra c e s b o th contr act - and t or t - r el at ed theor i es of l i abi l i tys o l ong as the ‘ cor e el ement ’ of the d a m a g e s [ re c o v e re d ] is c o m p o se d o f th e in su re d lo ss .”); se e a lso B a d illo v . Mid C ent ur y Ins . C o. , 12 1 P . 3d 10 80 , 11 07 (O kla. 20 05 ) ( dis cussi ng “i nsured l oss” and “c or e el ement ” conc ept s ) . A l though M s . Si m s cannotr ecove ratt or ney ’ s fee s forw or k r el at ed s ol el yt o herfai l ed bad fai th cl ai m , the bad fai th and contr act cl ai m s over l ap t o an ext ent . I n or dert o pr ove herbad fa i th cl ai m , M s . Si m s had to e s ta b lis h th a t th e in s u ra n c e c o n tr a c t w a s b re a c h e d . S e e Ch r is t i a n v . A m. Ho me A s s ur ance Co. , 5 7 7 P . 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 5 (O k la. 1 9 7 7 ). W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe di s t r i ctcourtneed di s al l ow onl ythos e att orney ’ s fee s r el at ed s peci fi cal l yt o the i s s ue of w hetherG r eatA m er i can a ct ed i n bad fa i th i n fai l i ng t o payhercl ai m , as th e re s o lu tio n o f

th a t is s u e d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to re c o v e ry o f th e in s u re d lo s s .- 5-

W e ther efor e V A C A T E t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aw ar d of att or ney ’ s fee s i n favor of M s . Si m s , and R E M A N D forr eca l cul at i on of the fe es t o be aw ar ded, i n l i ghtof ouropi ni on i n S i ms and the for egoi ng di s cus s i on. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge