Background
Jeremy S. Alexander was killed in a head-on collision while acting within the course and scope of his employment with Rent-A-Center. Rent-A-Center’s insurer, Sentinel Insurance Co., Ltd., paid statutory workers’ compensation death benefits to Alexander’s widow, Amy Alexander, and his son, T.A.
Amy Alexander and Tamara Dean, acting for T.A., jointly filed a tort action against driver Nam Ky Duong and other defendants. Rent-A-Center and Sentinel intervened under 85A O.S.2014, § 43(A)(1)(c), claiming a portion of the plaintiffs’ recovery as reimbursement for death benefits paid. After the plaintiffs reported reaching a settlement, they sought summary judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional under Article 23, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The trial court agreed, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to provide precedential guidance.
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Section 43 is constitutional as applied to workers’ compensation death benefits. Article 23, Section 7 protects the right to maintain an action for injuries resulting in death and prohibits statutory limits on the amount recoverable, but Section 43 neither eliminates the dependents’ third-party action nor limits the damages a tortfeasor may be required to pay.
Instead, Section 43(A) creates a right of indemnity and governs how proceeds recovered from a third-party tortfeasor are apportioned after collection costs. The Legislature could authorize an employer or carrier that paid death benefits to recover part of the beneficiaries’ third-party recovery. The court vacated both the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and the trial court’s order, then remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- An Oklahoma employer or workers’ compensation carrier may seek reimbursement from a dependent’s third-party recovery for death benefits paid under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Section 43(A) does not violate Article 23, Section 7 because it preserves the wrongful-death action and does not cap the tortfeasor’s liability; it apportions the resulting recovery.
- The court characterized recovery under Section 43(A), where dependents bring the third-party action, as indemnity; Section 43(B) addresses true subrogation through an action maintained by the employer or carrier.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves an unsettled question of Oklahoma law and confirms that workers’ compensation death-benefit payors may assert statutory rights against proceeds obtained from responsible third parties. Dependents may still pursue the full measure of available wrongful-death damages, but their net recovery may be subject to the allocation and lien provisions of Section 43.