23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1

Section 9.1 allows the defendant’s financial condition to be considered when assessing punitive damages.

YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson · filed 1997-06-24(A)

Section 9.1 explicitly authorizes the financial condition of the defendant to be inquired into for introduction in a punitive-damages-assessment phase of trial.

Section 9.1(A)(7) requires the trial court to consider the defendant's financial condition when awarding punitive damages.

HICKS v. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT FACILITY · filed 2016-09-21(A)(7)

The trial court must also consider the financial condition of Epworth Villa when making its award of punitive damages pursuant to 23 O.S. §9.1(A)(7).

Section 9.1(A) permits the factfinder to consider the defendant’s financial condition when assessing punitive damages.

CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Specsys Inc · filed 2021-03-05(A)

Oklahoma’s punitive-damages statute provides that, in assessing an award for punitive damages, the factfinder may consider, among other factors, “[t]he financial condition of the defendant.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(A).

Section 9.1(A)(7) allows a jury setting punitive damages to consider the defendant’s present financial condition.

Sanders v. Turn Key Health Clinics · filed 2021-06-14(A)(7)

Under Oklahoma law, juries can consider a range of factors in determining punitive damages, two of which are “[t]he profitability of the misconduct to the defendant,” and “[t]he financial condition of the defendant.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(A)(2), (7). From this language, Plaintiff claims that the “financial condition” factor refers to the present financial condition and that its “purpose is to determine a punishment for a defendant based on their financial condition now.” (Doc. 97 at 5). The Court agrees with Plaintiff on this point.

Section 9.1 requires findings supporting entitlement to punitive damages before evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is admitted.

Mireles v. Liberty Insurance Corporation · filed 2023-03-09

The court will not allow the admission of evidence, if any, regarding defendant’s financial condition until after the necessary finding or findings required by Oklahoma’s statute for entitlement to an award of punitive damages have been made. See, 23 O.S. § 9.1.

Section 9.1(A)(7) makes a defendant’s financial condition relevant to a punitive damages claim.

Cadena v. Rock Ridge Insurance Company · filed 2025-05-22(A)(7)

Information about Defendants’ financial condition is relevant to Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(A)(7); see also E.E.O.C. v. Midwest Reg. Med. Ctr., LLC, No. CIV-13-789-M, 2014 WL 2560704, *4 (W.D. Okla. June 6, 2014) (“The Tenth Circuit has found that the financial wealth of a corporation is relevant to punitive damages.”) (citing Cont’l Trend Res., Inc. v. OXY USA Inc., 101 F.3d 634, 641 (10th Cir. 1996)).

Section 9.1(C) allows the increased financial benefit from a uniform course of conduct harming the plaintiff and others to set the limit for Category II punitive damages.

Okland Oil Company v. Conoco Inc. · filed 1998-05-19(C)

We believe a plain reading of the statute manifests the legislature’s intent that the “conduct causing the injury to the plaintiff and other persons” would include conduct committed during the same time period pursuant to a uniform policy. We do not think the language requires that the conduct be a single isolated event, nor that it is so restrictive as to preclude ongoing fraudulent conduct.

Section 9.1(C)(2) caps Category II punitive damages at the greatest of $500,000, twice actual damages, or the increased financial benefit the insurer received from its bad faith.

Tate · filed 2026-04-24(C)(2)

Under Oklahoma law, when an insurer “intentionally and with malice breache[s] its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured[,]” the insurer is subject to Category II punitive damages, which cannot exceed the greater of (a) $500,000, (b) twice the amount of actual damages, (c) or the increased financial benefit the insurer received as a direct result of the bad faith which caused the insured’s injuries.

Section 9.1 applies only to civil actions filed after its effective date.

Bennett v. 2 Poor White Boys, Inc. · filed 1998-08-25(G)

The revised statute provides that its application is prospective only: “This section shall apply to all civil actions filed after the effective date of this act.” Section 9.1(G)(emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

Section 9.1 applies prospectively and does not govern a cause filed before its 1995 enactment.

Frank v. Mayberry · filed 1999-06-30

The statute was repealed in 1995 and replaced with 23 O.S. Supp.1995 § 9.1(A)—(G). We will apply the amendments to this statute prospectively.

Section 9.1 applies to civil actions filed after August 25, 1995.

Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2001-01-16(G)

The instant case, however, was tried under § 9 because § 9.1(G) provides that "[§ 9.1] shall apply to all civil actions filed after [August 25, 1995]." Barnes initially filed suit in 1991 and supplemented in 1992 to sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages for reckless disregard of others’ rights when proved by clear and convincing evidence; a jury may decide the issue when the evidence could satisfy that burden.

Black v. M & W Gear Company · filed 2001-11-07

Punitive damage awards in Oklahoma are governed by Section 9.1 of Title 23 of the Oklahoma Statutes. ... Nevertheless, a reasonable juror could have resolved that Plaintiff met this burden with the evidence presented.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages on a common law actual fraud claim when its statutory requirements are met.

Rogers v. Meiser · filed 2003-02-04

There is no doubt a common law claim for actual fraud is a type of claim that holds the potential for properly falling under one or more of the specified provisions of § 9.1.

Section 9.1 requires evidence of at least reckless disregard of another’s rights before punitive damages may be submitted to the jury.

Badillo v. Mid Century Insurance Co. · filed 2005-06-22

Under § 9.1, for punitive damages to be allowed there must be evidence, at a minimum, of reckless disregard toward another’s rights from which malice and evil intent may be inferred.

Section 9.1(C) permits remittitur of a punitive damages award that was properly awarded under the section but is constitutionally excessive.

Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Oklahoma · filed 2006-07-05(C)

This provision does not prohibit the remittitur of a punitive damages award which has been properly awarded under section 9.1(C) but found to be constitutionally excessive.

Section 9.1 makes harm to others integral to a punitive damages award, so the court could not instruct the jury to disregard harm to the public.

Moody v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2007-03-20

As discussed above, the current framework for punitive damages in Oklahoma does not allow this Court to give an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of harm to the public, because harm to others is an integral part in any award of punitive damages under Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages for breach of an obligation not arising from contract; the court treated fraudulent conveyance claims as contractual for this purpose.

Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In Re Tronox Inc.) · filed 2010-03-31

The Oklahoma statute on punitive damages allows punitive damages “[i]n an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. Although Plaintiffs contend that their fraudulent conveyance claim does not arise from contract, Oklahoma authority is to the contrary.

Section 9.1 requires conduct supporting punitive damages to arise from the underlying claim; a party’s litigation conduct alone does not suffice.

ONLINE OIL, INC. v. CO&G PRODUCTION GROUP, LLC · filed 2017-08-29

Further, the type of conduct described in section 9.1 as essential to an award of punitive damages concerns facts giving rise to the underlying claim, not a party's litigation conduct.

Section 9.1 requires evidence that an insurer recklessly disregarded or intentionally and maliciously breached its duty of good faith before punitive damages may be awarded.

Sims v. Great American Life Insurance · filed 2006-11-07(B), (D)

Stated differently, an insurer must “recklessly disregard” or “intentionally and with malice breach[] its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1 (B), (D) (2005); see Badillo v. M id Century Ins. Co., 121 P.3d 1080, 1106 (O kla. 2005). The evidence in this case plainly does not support this conclusion.

Section 9.1 allows a punitive damages claim to proceed when the evidence raises a genuine factual dispute about reckless disregard for others’ safety.

B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp. · filed 2007-02-01

This evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to reckless disregard for the safety of others, and defendants motion for summary judgment should be denied.

Section 9.1 requires evidence of at least reckless disregard for another’s rights before punitive damages may be submitted to a jury.

Edwards v. Pepsico, Inc. · filed 2008-03-10

Our review of the appellate record convinces us the trial court correctly withheld the issue of punitive damages from jury consideration: the record does not contain competent evidence from which a reasonable jury could find reckless disregard sufficient to support an inference of evil intent and malice.

Section 9.1(B)(1) allows a punitive damages issue to reach the jury when the evidence could support a finding of reckless disregard for others’ rights.

Beavers v. Victorian · filed 2014-03-27(B)(1)

In light of the determination that Plaintiffs’ negligent hiring claim must be submitted to the jury, the Court finds that a jury must decide the issue of whether the degree of negligence, if any, could be considered reckless. Further, in light of the obvious danger to the public presented by the operation of semitrailer truck carrying a heavy load of shingles by a trucking company that is not a “competent contractor,” if that is the jury’s finding, the Court finds that the availability of punitive damages presents a factual issue to be determined by the jury.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages for reckless disregard of another's rights; an award based on that conduct can stand when a fraud verdict is reversed.

CLABAUGH v. GRANT · filed 2014-06-20

The jury's punitive damages award was based upon Defendant's reckless disregard for Plaintiff's rights, see 23 O.S. 2011 §9.1; OUJI No. 5.6, via his unauthorized taking and disposal of Plaintiff's property. Thus, under the facts of this case, we hold the damage award is unaffected by the reversal of Plaintiff's fraud verdict.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages only for reckless disregard of others’ rights or intentional, malicious conduct; negligence alone is insufficient.

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS · filed 2014-03-24

Punitive damages are not available in Oklahoma unless a defendant acted either with reckless disregard of the rights of others or intentionally and with malice. See 23 O.S.2011, § 9.1. Thus, punitive damages would not be available for defamation based on a negligence standard.

Section 9.1 allows punitive damages for reckless disregard of others’ rights without willful and malicious conduct, and permits a higher award for intentional conduct with malice.

Hedger v. Kramer · filed 2018-02-28(B)(1), (C)(1)

We also note that punitive damages can be awarded in Oklahoma even if the defendant's conduct is not willful and malicious. Punitive damages up to the greater of $100,000 or actual damages can be awarded if “[t]he defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(1)(a)-(b). If, however, “[t]he defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others,” the jury may award damages up to the greater of $500,000, twice the actual damages awarded, or the increased financial benefit derived by the defendant from its conduct. Id. § 9.1(C)(1)(a)-(c).

Section 9.1 requires courts to consider specified factors when deciding whether to award punitive damages.

PetSmart, Inc. v. Dancor Construction, Inc. · filed 2020-01-31

Under Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1, the following factors must be considered in awarding punitive damages: ... The Court has reviewed these factors and does not find that punitive damages should be awarded to plaintiff.

Section 9.1’s “for the sake of example” language continued longstanding Oklahoma law; it did not introduce a new purpose for punitive damages.

King v. Kennedy · filed 2023-03-16

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the “for the sake of example” language was not added in 1995 to reflect Oklahoma’s new view on the purpose of punitive damages.

Section 9.1 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages for tortious interference to prove reckless, intentional, or malicious conduct by clear and convincing evidence and to plead facts supporting that conduct.

Equity Funding, LLC v. McNeill · filed 2024-05-20

Additionally, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages for tortious interference “must prove that the defendant acted either recklessly, intentionally, or maliciously by clear and convincing evidence.” Wilspec Techs., Inc., 204 P.3d at 75 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1). ... Additionally, to support her request for punitive damages, Ms. McNeill must allege sufficient facts to support a finding that Equity Funding’s alleged interference was reckless, intentional, or malicious.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages only for breach of an obligation that does not arise from a contract.

Panepinto v. Compression Solutions, LLC · filed 2024-06-26

In Oklahoma, punitive damages are only available in “an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” 23 O.S. § 9.1.

Section 9.1(A) precludes punitive damages for a breach of contract claim.

Cline v. Sunoco · filed 2025-11-17(A)

However, the punitive damages award runs afoul of Oklahoma law, which precludes punitive damages for a breach of contract claim.

Section 9.1 limits punitive damages to the amount of actual damages awarded when actual damages exceed $100,000.

HAMLIN v. YOB · filed 2026-02-06

Because the actual damages awarded exceeded the statutory cap of $100,000.00, the $157,322.00 in actual damages awarded established the punitive damages cap for Addicted. However, the jury awarded $175,000.00 in punitive damages which exceeded the $157,322.00 cap for Addicted. Thus, we must reverse the punitive damages award of $175,000.00 to Addicted, and find it must be reduced to $157,322.00 to comply with Section 9.1.

Section 9.1(B)(2) allows punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows that an insurer recklessly disregarded its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Garnett Road Baptist Church v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-10-30(B)(2)

Under Oklahoma law, an award of punitive damages is appropriate where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[a]n insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured” or “intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2), (C)(2).7 ... Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the Church and drawing all reasonable inferences in the Church’s favor, a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether GuideOne, at a minimum, recklessly disregarded its duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to its investigation and payment of plaintiff’s claim. Summary adjudication of the punitive damages issue is therefore not warranted at this time.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard for others’ rights before punitive damages may be awarded.

Iser v. CSAA Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2020-12-11

Punitive damages may be awarded only if the plaintiff shows by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been “guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of reckless disregard for others’ rights, and evidence that a driver was aware of or did not care about a substantial risk of serious injury can defeat summary judgment.

McGinley v. American Dump Trucks Inc · filed 2021-09-30(B)

Under Oklahoma law, punitive damages may be awarded if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others,” or that “[t]he defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others.” See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)-(D). ... Particularly in view of the fact that Diaz was driving a semitractor-trailer, a reasonable factfinder could conclude from the evidence that this conduct created a substantial and unnecessary risk of serious injury to smaller vehicles and their occupants and that Diaz was aware of or did not care about this risk. ... Accordingly, Diaz’s request for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is denied.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of reckless disregard for others’ rights; a factual dispute about that conduct can preclude summary judgment.

Taggart v. Casing Crews Inc · filed 2022-01-24(B)

Considering these factual disputes regarding how Mr. Salazar entered the intersection and how careful he was before proceeding onto the highway, summary judgment on the punitive damages claim is inappropriate.

Section 9.1(B)(2) permits punitive damages against an insurer when clear and convincing evidence shows it recklessly disregarded its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Hellard v. Mid Century Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-10(B)(2)

Under Oklahoma law, an award of punitive damages is appropriate where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[a]n insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured” or “intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2), (C)(2). ... Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Hellard and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether Mid-Century, at a minimum, recklessly disregarded its duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to its obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation and make timely payment of Hellard’s claim. Summary adjudication of the punitive damages issue is therefore not warranted at this time.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages for insurer bad faith when clear and convincing evidence could establish reckless disregard, or intentional and malicious disregard, of the duty to deal fairly and in good faith with the insured.

Graves v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2021-03-01(B), (C)

In Oklahoma, punitive damages are available “[w]here the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence” that an insurer has recklessly, or intentionally and with malice, “disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B), (C). ... The Court therefore finds that, even under a clear and convincing standard, a jury could reasonably find that Travelers acted recklessly or even intentionally and with malice.

Section 9.1(B)(2) permits punitive damages for an insurer’s reckless disregard of its duty of good faith when proved by clear and convincing evidence; a factual dispute over that conduct can defeat summary judgment.

Parrish v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. · filed 2022-08-05(B)(2)

Under Oklahoma law, an award of punitive damages is appropriate where the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[a]n insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured” or “intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2), (C)(2). ... Viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Parrish and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether FICO, at a minimum, recklessly disregarded its duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to its obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation and make timely payment of Ms. Parrish’s Second Claim.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least reckless disregard of an insurer’s duty of good faith to support punitive damages.

Holmes v. Doe · filed 2020-11-17(B)(2)

Pursuant to Oklahoma statute, a jury may award punitive damages where it finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[a]n insurer has recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured” or “intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(2), (C)(2). ... Plaintiff has not presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to meet the minimum threshold for punitive damages, and accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment thereon.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard or intentional malice to support punitive damages; an ordinary vehicle collision without that evidence does not qualify.

Myers v. Bhullar · filed 2022-06-29

These facts carry all the hallmarks of an ordinary vehicle collision and provide no evidence of reckless disregard for the rights of others sufficient to support punitive damages.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages for reckless disregard or intentional malice proved by clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court must determine whether the evidence warrants submitting punitive damages to the jury.

CARTER v. PENDLEY · filed 2023-05-12(B)(1), (C)(1)

The court properly performed its gatekeeping function to determine, on the question of punitive damages, whether there was clear and convincing evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant acted in reckless disregard of the rights of others. There was evidence of failure to pay sufficient attention to notice Plaintiffs in the intersection, but as the trial court concluded, there was no clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard for others' rights--the evidence did not warrant the submission of punitive damages to the jury, and the trial court correctly refused to submit or instruct on punitive damages.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard for others’ rights or intentional malice to recover punitive damages.

Haygood v. JWC Environmental Inc · filed 2023-07-10

The current record is devoid of any evidence that JWC acted with “reckless disregard” or “intentionally and with malice” towards others. See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. Absent any competent evidence warranting submission of this issue to the jury, and in light of the clear and convincing evidentiary standard, the Court must conclude that JWC is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s recovery of punitive damages.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard or intentional malice for punitive damages; a court may resolve the issue on summary judgment when the evidence is insufficient.

Sibley v. Kane · filed 2024-03-04(B)-(D)

Under Oklahoma law, punitive damages may be awarded if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others” or that “[t]he defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others.” See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)-(D). ... For these reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard or intentional malice; without evidence of either, the issue need not go to the jury.

Haddox v. Central Freightlines, Inc. · filed 2025-09-25

Under Oklahoma law, punitive damages are available upon clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others” or “[t]he defendant has acted intentionally and with malice towards others ….” 23 O.S. §§ 9.1(B)(1), (C)(1), and (D)(1). ... In all, Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Moore acted intentionally or with malice, or in reckless disregard. Moore is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the Court will not instruct the jury concerning punitive damages asserted against Moore.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard for others’ rights or intentional conduct with malice to award punitive damages.

Adams · filed 2026-02-13

Punitive damages require a plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in a reckless disregard for the rights of others or acted intentionally and with malice towards others. ... The summary-judgment record does not contain facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant's actions were malicious, reckless, willful, wanton, or grossly negligent, and therefore the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the question of punitive damages is hereby GRANTED.

Section 9.1(B)(1) permits punitive damages on clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard for others’ rights; when the evidence permits reasonable disagreement about recklessness, the jury decides the issue.

Loyd v. Salazar · filed 2020-12-07(B)(1)

In light of the Court’s determination that Salazar’s alleged negligence must be submitted to the jury, and the parties’ implicit agreement that Carrazana’s negligence is a jury issue, the Court finds that a jury must also decide the issue of whether the degree of Defendants’ negligence, if any, could be considered reckless.

Section 9.1(B)(1) allows a punitive damages claim to proceed when disputed facts could show reckless disregard for the rights of others.

Godwin v. NA Transport, Inc · filed 2022-08-11(B)(1)

The court finds that sufficient questions of material fact exist to support a claim for punitive damages under 23 O.S. §9.1(B)(1) and summary judgment is not proper.

Section 9.1(B)(1) permits a jury to award punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant recklessly disregarded the rights of others.

Pratt v. Walmart Inc · filed 2023-03-13(B)(1)

Under Oklahoma law, a jury may award punitive damages if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the “defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others.”

Section 9.1 requires reckless disregard of another's rights for punitive damages; a statutory reckless-driving violation does not necessarily meet that standard.

PHILLIPS v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO · filed 2023-05-17

Reckless driving, as defined by statute, does not necessarily equate to the standard of reckless disregard of the rights of others required to impose punitive damages under 23 O.S.2021, § 9.1. The trial court did not err by declining to submit punitive damages to the jury on this basis.

Section 9.1(B) permits punitive damages on clear and convincing proof of at least reckless disregard; a genuine dispute over that conduct can defeat summary judgment.

Willis v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company · filed 2023-12-21(B)

Although “punitive damages do not automatically follow from proof of bad faith,” Hatfield v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 98 F. App’x 789, 795 (10th Cir. 2004), they are recoverable under Oklahoma law if “the jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that” the defendant acted, at a minimum, with reckless disregard for the rights of others. ... After viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds at this stage in the litigation that a genuine dispute exists as to whether Progressive’s conduct could give rise to a finding of reckless disregard. ... Accordingly, Progressive is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 9.1 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the rights of others.

Brough Trucking LLC v. Truck Doctor Inc · filed 2025-06-02(B)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with reckless disregard because it was either aware, or did not care, that it was charging Plaintiff for engine repairs that were not being performed properly. The Court concludes that $12,000 in punitive damages, which is approximately equivalent to the cost to replace the engine, is an appropriate amount.

Section 9.1 requires clear and convincing evidence of reckless disregard to support punitive damages on that basis.

Terlecky v. Lowes Home Centers LLC · filed 2024-05-29

In addition, the Court has undertaken its own review of the materials presented and concludes that, even when the evidence and the inferences drawn from the record are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find by the required standard of clear and convincing evidence that Color Ink acted with reckless disregard. Accordingly, Color Ink is entitled to judgment in this respect.

Section 9.1(A) and (B) permit submission of punitive damages to the jury when competent evidence supports the issue.

Boatsman v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. · filed 2001-06-22(A) and (B)

We have reviewed the record before us, and on the evidence we have recounted, we find competent evidence to support the submission of the punitive damage issue to the jury pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1(A) and (B).

Section 9.1 requires the trial court to determine whether competent evidence supports punitive damages before submitting the issue to the jury.

Estrada v. PORT CITY PROPERTIES, INC. · filed 2011-04-19

Nothing in the current statutory framework changes the trial court's responsibility to determine whether any competent evidence exists which would warrant submission the question of punitive damages to the jury.

Section 9.1 allows a punitive damages claim based on reckless disregard to proceed when the evidence could support that finding by a jury.

Roberson v. Wal-Mart Inc · filed 2022-07-21

Construing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Roberson—as the Court must do at this stage—Roberson has demonstrated that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sam’s Club exhibited a reckless disregard for the rights of others under Scribner. Therefore, summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is inappropriate.

Section 9.1(C) requires an award of actual damages before punitive damages may be awarded.

Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C. · filed 2002-09-06(C)

However, should the jury and trial court find no actual damages on remand, the punitive damages award must be vacated because § 9.1(C) requires an award of actual damages before punitive damages may be awarded.

Section 9.1(B)(1) permits punitive damages for reckless disregard of others’ rights when clear and convincing evidence shows a high probability of serious harm.

Therrien v. Target Corporation · filed 2010-08-09(B)(1)

In Oklahoma a jury may award punitive damages if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he defendant has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others,” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1(B)(1) (2010), or “acted intentionally and with malice towards others,” id. § 9.1(C)(1), (D)(1). ... Mr. Therrien proffered no evidence that Target’s conduct created a high probability of serious harm to another person.

Section 9.1 does not permit punitive damages when the plaintiff is not entitled to actual damages.

Meier v. Chesapeake Operating L.L.C. · filed 2018-08-13

Because plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the actual damages they seek, the court also concludes that ... they may not recover the punitive damages requested.

Section 9.1(B) requires a separate jury stage to determine the amount of punitive damages, during which a defendant must be allowed to argue that amount even if the plaintiff waives argument.

Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp. · filed 2006-06-27(B)

We also conclude that a party’s right to present argument on any question of fact to be determined by the jury must be afforded to the defendant in the second stage of a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages under 23 O.S.2001, § 9.1(B) and 12 O.S.2001, § 577 even when the plaintiff waives argument.

Section 9.1(B) permits a separate punitive damages proceeding only after an award of actual damages and a clear-and-convincing finding of reckless disregard.

Vance v. Enogex Gas Gathering, L.L.C. · filed 2016-08-26(B)

23 O.S. Supp. 2002 § 9.1(B) quoted above, tells us the punitive damage second stage is considered a separate proceeding which is only possible after an award of actual damages is returned along with the clear and convincing reckless disregard finding.

Section 9.1 uses a two-stage process for punitive damages; argument about the amount of punitive damages belongs in the second stage.

Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. Partnership · filed 2017-09-28

Oklahoma substantive law provides for punitive damages as a remedy and delineates a two-stage process for the award of any such damages. ... It should have been presented during the second stage of trial, not the first.

Section 9.1 provides a two-stage trial procedure for punitive damages that a federal judge may use at the judge’s discretion.

Donehue v. Apache Corporation · filed 2023-11-07

Accordingly, the Court will utilize the two-stage trial procedure set out in Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1.

Section 9.1 requires the jury to make the predicate finding for punitive damages before a separate phase considers their amount.

Greene v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2023-09-19(B), (C)

The trial will be conducted in two phases, consistent with the practice in this Court in insurance cases with bad faith claims and consistent with the plain language of the Oklahoma punitive damages statute.

Section 9.1 allows punitive damages based on the same conduct toward in-state nonparties, but not out-of-state parties.

Metzger v. American Fidelity Assurance Co. · filed 2007-10-23(C)(2)

Pursuant to section 9. 1, the Oklahoma punitive damage statute (until addressed in light of recent Supreme Court authority) allows punitive damage awards based on the same conduct against in-state non-parties, but not out-of-state parties.