Background
Maryann Thomas sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from Liberty Mutual for injuries arising from a 2020 automobile accident. During a transition between Liberty’s lawyers, Thomas served requests for admission on Liberty’s attorney of record at her former firm. The firm informed Thomas’s counsel that William O’Connor was handling the matter, and O’Connor and Margo Shipley entered appearances before the responses were due, but they did not receive the requests and therefore did not answer them.
One year later, Thomas sought summary judgment on Liberty’s liability, relying on the unanswered requests as deemed admissions. Liberty asked the district court not to deem the matters admitted or, alternatively, to permit their withdrawal. The district court ultimately granted Thomas partial summary judgment solely on the deemed admissions, which established that Liberty had provided UM/UIM coverage and breached the insurance contract. The court certified its interlocutory order for immediate review.
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court majority held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Liberty to withdraw the deemed admissions. Withdrawal would promote resolution on the merits because the admissions resolved the central disputed issue—whether Thomas’s policy provided UM/UIM coverage—while Thomas failed to show that withdrawal would prejudice her ability to maintain the action. The majority emphasized that Liberty’s new counsel did not know about the requests, Thomas’s counsel did not notify or re-serve them after learning of the change in representation, and Liberty sought relief at its first opportunity.
The Court reversed the partial summary judgment and remanded with instructions to allow Liberty to withdraw the admissions. It expressly declined to decide whether the policy actually provided UM/UIM coverage. The decision was divided: Justice Jett agreed that summary judgment should be reversed but would have remanded for the district court to decide withdrawal in the first instance. Justice Gurich, joined by Justice Combs, would have denied certiorari and left the properly deemed admissions in place; Chief Justice Rowe also dissented.
Key Takeaways
- Deemed admissions may be withdrawn when doing so promotes adjudication on the merits and the requesting party cannot demonstrate prejudice in maintaining the case.
- Withdrawal was required here because the admissions conclusively resolved the disputed coverage issue, new counsel lacked knowledge of the requests, and Liberty sought relief promptly after learning of them.
- The divided Court disagreed over the proper disposition: the majority ordered withdrawal, Justice Jett favored an initial district-court ruling, and the Gurich-Combs dissent would have denied certiorari.
Why It Matters
The opinion limits the use of unanswered requests for admission to obtain case-dispositive relief when a documented change in counsel prevented a party from learning of the requests and withdrawal would not prejudice the opposing party. It reinforces that requests for admission ordinarily narrow undisputed issues rather than serve as a substitute for deciding contested liability on the merits.
The ruling does not resolve Thomas’s entitlement to UM/UIM benefits. On remand, the coverage dispute must proceed without the withdrawn admissions conclusively establishing Liberty’s liability.