Proctor et al v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company

Filing 40

ORDER denying 28 defendant's Motion to Dismiss (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 4/20/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL PROCTOR, an Individual,
on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-750-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed November 19, 2015. On December
9, 2015, plaintiff filed his response, and on December 16, 2015, defendant filed its reply. Defendant
moves this Court to dismiss those portions of plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint seeking
attorney fees and punitive damages.
I.

Attorney Fees
Defendant asserts that plaintiff has not alleged, and cannot allege, a basis to support

plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. Defendant contends that plaintiff must identify either a statute
or contractual provision entitling plaintiff to attorney fees and because plaintiff has not, the Court
should dismiss that portion of plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint requesting attorney fees.
Plaintiff asserts that attorney fees are recoverable under a “common benefit” theory. Specifically,
plaintiff contends that should he prevail such that return of the allegedly wrongfully taken premiums
be ordered, a benefit common to the entire class will have been conferred and that in such an event,
the Court has the authority to order an award of attorney fees based upon the benefit conferred.

In Oklahoma, whether a litigant can recover attorney fees is governed by the American Rule
which precludes an award of fees absent statutory or contractual authority. See Kay v. Venezuelan
Sun Oil Co., 806 P.2d 648, 650 (Okla. 1991). However,
[t]he common [benefit] doctrine is an exception to the general rule
that attorney fees are not recoverable absent some statutory authority
therefor or an enforceable contract. When an individual’s efforts
succeed in creating or preserving a fund that benefits similarly
situated non-litigants, equity powers may be invoked to charge that
fund with attorney fees for legal services rendered in its creation or
preservation. The created or preserved fund must be brought under
the direct supervision of the court. The idea is that those who benefit
from the fund’s preservation should contribute to the expense of
litigation.
Fent v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Servs., 236 P.3d 61, 70 (Okla. 2010) (internal citation omitted).
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court finds that
it would be premature at this stage of the proceedings to find that plaintiff cannot recover attorney
fees under the “common benefit” theory. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for
attorney fees should not be dismissed at this time.
II.

Punitive Damages
Defendant also asserts that plaintiff has not alleged, and cannot allege, a basis to support

plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. Defendant contends that a request for punitive damages
requires identification of a cause of action which supports punitive damages, and because plaintiff
has not, the Court should dismiss that portion of plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint
requesting punitive damages.
Under Oklahoma law, the torts of fraud and deceit may support an award of punitive
damages. See Okland Oil Co. v. Conoco Inc., 144 F.3d 1308, 1314 (10th Cir. 1998). Having
carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff has
2

alleged claims for false representation and deceit. See Amended Class Action Complaint [docket
no. 24] at ¶ ¶ 62, 63. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff has alleged a basis to support his request
for punitive damages and that the portion of plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint requesting
punitive damages should not be dismissed.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss [docket no. 28].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2016.

3