The jurors then signed a “supplemental verdict form” allocating $5,000,000 of the $14,000,000 awarded to Mr. Beason as actual noneconomic damages. The trial court determined that all of Ms. Beason's damages were noneconomic in nature.

Applying the provisions of 23 O.S. 2011 § 61.2(B)-(F), which statutorily limits a plaintiff's recovery of noneconomic damages to $350,000 in the absence of special findings, the trial court reduced the verdict to $9,700,000. Specifically, the trial court lowered the jury's total award of $6,000,000 in noneconomic damages to the Beasons to $700,000 (that is, $350,000 per person) in accordance with the statute's cap on damages.

The Beasons moved to conform the judgment to the jury's verdict and the evidence, and reiterated their pretrial argument that 23 O.S. 2011 § 61.2 was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the Beasons' motion, rejecting their constitutional challenge to the statute.

The dispute reached the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court's Decision

The court reversed, holding that 23 O.S. 2011 § 61.2(B)-(F) was an impermissible special law that violated Article 5, Section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution because it singled out for different treatment less than the entire class of similarly situated persons who may sue to recover for bodily injury.

In its decision, the court explained that the Oklahoma constitution expressly forbids “any statutory limitation” on the amount recoverable for damages for injuries resulting in death. Okla. Const. art. 23, § 7. According to the court, if a decedent can recover without limitation for pain and suffering during the time between the harm-causing event and his or her death, “no good reason” existed to treat a person who survived the harm-causing event differently with respect to recovery for the very same detriment.

The court also reasoned that the fact that the statutory cap could be lifted, if the injured party could show certain degrees of culpability on the part of the harm-causing agent, did not save the statute from its discriminatory effect. “Culpability or lack of culpability,” the court said, had “no bearing whatsoever on the extent of the suffering a victim – deceased or surviving – sustain[ed].”

The case is Beason v. I. E. Miller Services, Inc., No. 114301 (Okla. April 23, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Ed Abel, Lynn B. Mares, Kelly S. Bishop, and T. Luke Abel, Abel Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Valerie M. Nannery, pro hac vice, and Robert S. Peck, pro hac vice, Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., Washington, D.C., for James Todd Beason and Dara Beason, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Counter-Appellees. Robert Todd Goolsby, Perry E. Kaufman, and Megan C. Lee, Goolsby, Proctor, Heefner and Gibbs, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for I. E. Miller Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Mithun Mansinghani, Solicitor General, and Sarah A. Greenwalt, Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the State of Oklahoma. Amy Sherry Fischer, Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Mark Alan Behrens, pro hac vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, and Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc. Rex Travis and Paul Kouri, Travis Law Office, Oklahoma [**2] City, Oklahoma, and Simone Gosnell Fulmer, Fulmer Group PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae, Oklahoma Association for Justice. Erin A. Renegar and Carline J. Lewis, Wiggins, Sewell & Ogletree, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae, Oklahoma Association of Defense Counsel. V. Glenn Coffee and Denise K. Lawson, Glenn Coffee & Associates, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amici Curiae, Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc., and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.