Beebe v. Flores

6 Citing cases

  1. Hansen v. GMB Transp.

    24-cv-00255-SH (N.D. Okla. Nov. 26, 2024)

    Under the UCR, “a for-hire motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce that complies with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and registers its liability insurance policy or bond in its base state need not register in any other state participating in the UCR agreement.” Beebe v. Flores, No. CIV-11-1381-HE, 2012 WL 137780, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012). As such, a

  2. Mendoza v. Zomer Bros.

    No. CIV-22-979-PRW (W.D. Okla. Jun. 28, 2023)

    OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, § 230. Beebe v. Flores, No. CIV-11-1381-HE, 2012 WL 137780, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012). The option for “home” or “base” state registration stems from Oklahoma's participation in the federal Unified Carrier Registration System (“UCRS”).Within that system

  3. O'Dell v. Baker

    No. CIV-22-147-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla. Nov. 9, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See e.g., Mason v. Dunn, 2016 WL 1178058 *5 (E.D. Okla. March 23, 2016) (47 O.S. § 230.30 does not apply to an interstate carrier registered in its home state under the Unified Carrier Registration Act and is not registered with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission); Hankla v. Lee, 2018 WL 563181 *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 25, 2018) (§ 230.30 does not apply to interstate motor carriers prior to judgement being entered against the carrier); Beebe v. Flores, 2012 WL 127780 *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012) (§ 230.30 does not authorize a direct action against the insurer of an out-of-state motor carrier that has registered in its “home” or “base” state and not with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission); Adrean v. Lopez, 2011 WL 3880930 *2 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2011) (direct action against insurer is prohibited because the carrier did not obtain an Oklahoma license from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission pursuant to § 230.30)

  4. Northcutt v. Fulton

    No. CIV-20-885-R (W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2020)

    Courts have routinely held that when plaintiffs fail to plead that § 230.30 applies to the defendants, the plaintiff fails to state a claim and the motion to dismiss should be granted. See, e.g., Beebe v. Flores, No. CIV-11-1381-HE, 2012 WL 137780, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012) (plaintiff failed to state claim when petition did not "allege any facts indicating § 230.30 applie[d] to defendants..."); Simpson v. Litt, No. CIV-17-339-R, 2017 WL 2271484, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 23, 2017) ("[F]ederal courts have been unanimous in holding that the insurance companies for interstate carriers who have not filed proof of insurance in Oklahoma may not be named as joint defendants.") (collecting cases). Plaintiff's petition fails to allege that Great West has filed proof of insurance in Oklahoma.

  5. Miller v. Singh

    Case No. 14-CV-103-JED-PJC (N.D. Okla. Jan. 15, 2015)

    The Court agrees. Other federal judges in Oklahoma have concluded that the Oklahoma statutes, Okla. Stat. tit. 47, §§ 169 and 230.30, do not permit direct actions against interstate motor carrier liability insurers that (1) have not obtained licenses from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and (2) are properly registered in another state under the Unified Carrier Registration System (formerly called the Single State Registration System). See, e.g., Hobbs v. Rui Zhao, No. 13-CV-673-CVE-FHM, 2014 WL 3898408, **2-4 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2014) (unpublished); Beebe v. Flores, No. CIV-11-1381-HE, 2012 WL 137780 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished); Hubbard v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. CIV-06-356-S, 2007 WL 1299270 (E.D. Okla. May 1, 2007) (unpublished). Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding plaintiff's claims against Great West, and Great West is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  6. Foraker v. Reeves

    Case No. 11-CV-0759-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. Apr. 11, 2012)

    This conclusion is consistent with Fierro and numerous decisions by federal district courts located in Oklahoma. Beebe v. Flores, 2012 WL 137780 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2012); Adrean v. Lopez, 2011 WL 3880930 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2011); Green v. ACE American Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4372871 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2008); Hubbard v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2007 WL 1299270 (E.D. Okla. May 1, 2007). Plaintiff argues that defendant's registration or licensing is a factual issue which should be explored in discovery and the Court should not accept defendant's statements concerning Trailiner's registration. Dkt. # 56, at 6-8.