Court Opinion

ID: 9543889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:12.205156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:24.059172
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent in part from the majority decision. In my opinion the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff. His claim for bad faith damages was grounded on the uninsured motorist clause and was therefore excluded from coverage under 36 O.S.1991 § 3629(B), as determined by the Court of Appeals.
Additionally, Christian v. American Home Assur.Co., Okl., 577 P.2d 899 (1977), does not support awarding attorney fees to plaintiff here. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, Christian does not stand for the rule that attorney fees are always available in bad faith eases. In Christian there was a clear showing of willful, malicious and oppressive conduct by the insurer. In deciding Christian, this Court recognized the rule that ordinarily attorney fees may not be recovered in the absence of an agreement or statutory authority. We remanded the matter to the trial court, however, to determine whether under those particular facts, appellant came with the exception to that rule established in City Nation Bank v. Owens, Okl., 565 P.2d 4 (1977), allowing recovery of attorney fees upon a showing of misconduct during litigation. The facts here are clearly distinguishable.
The majority exaggerates Christian beyond recognition in stating it made attorney fees an “element of the insured’s damage recovery” for a bad faith refusal to pay a *28claim and a part of the plaintiffs claim not dependent on an insured’s prevailing party status.