Court Opinion

ID: 9787749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:24:01.125067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:00.200407
License: Public Domain

CAROL M. HANSEN, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 11 agree this matter is controlled by the first scenario of 85 O.S.2001 § 11(B)(5) because Claimant worked for Employer for the entire 90-day period of his last injurious exposure, but disagree with the majority as to the effect of the language of this statute when more than one insurer successively covered the risk during that 90-day period. The statute provides, “the insurance carrier, if any, on the risk when the employee was last so exposed under such employer, shall alone be liable therefor, without right to contribution from any prior employer or insur-*482anee carrier.” § 11(B)(5) (emphasis added). The words “last so exposed” refers to the previous clause, “last injuriously exposed to the trauma during a period of at least ninety (90) days or more.” Therefore, I read the statute to place the coverage liability on “the insurance carrier ... on the risk when the employee was [last injuriously exposed to the trauma during a period of at least ninety (90) days or more] ... without right to contribution from any prior ... insurance carrier.” In this case, more than one insurer was on the risk during the relevant 90-day period. I would sustain the Workers’ Compensation Court’s order because it properly apportioned liability between the two insurers successively on the risk during that period.