Oklahoma law has consistently recognized that a single tort or wrong to a single person gives rise to but a single action however numerous the items of damage resulting from the single wrong or tort may be. See, e.g., Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 436 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1967); Stanley v. Sweet, 202 Okla. 448, 214 P.2d 906 (1950); City of Altus v. Fletcher, 193 Okla. 220, 142 P.2d 614 (1943); Kansas City, M. O. Ry. Co. v. Shutt, 24 Okla. 96, 104 P. 51 (1909). To avoid multiple and potentially vexatious lawsuits against the defendant liable for such a single wrong, the law proscribes "splitting" of such a single cause of action or claim:
(citations omitted)); see also Mosby , 1997 OK 93, ¶ 9, 943 P.2d at 595 (acknowledging that subrogated insurer's cause of action, where damage to insured arose from automobile accident, is a cause in negligence despite the fact that tortfeasor's negligent conduct was directed at insured rather than insurer).See Lowder v. Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 1967 OK 245, ¶¶ 18-20, 436 P.2d 654, 658 (recognizing that the insured and his subrogated insurer were seeking to recover damages arising from the same cause of action, and thus holding that they may not split their claims into separate actions).C & C Tile Co. , 1972 OK 137, ¶ 23, 503 P.2d at 559.
¶21 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the "rule against splitting of a cause of action is applicable to bar a second action predicated upon the same cause of action." Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1967 OK 245, ¶ 14, 436 P.2d 654. "The reasons for the rule against splitting a single cause of action have been given as including the prevention of multiplicity of suits and vexatious litigation for defendant." Id. ¶ 16.
¶ 21 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the “rule against splitting of a cause of action is applicable to bar a second action predicated upon the same cause of action.” Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1967 OK 245, ¶ 14, 436 P.2d 654. “The reasons for the rule against splitting a single cause of action have been given as including the prevention of multiplicity of suits and vexatious litigation for defendant.” Id. ¶ 16.
Conspicuously absent is a single citation from a court of Oklahoma, whose state law we must apply. Casto attempts to distinguish one of many Oklahoma decisions relied on by defendant, i. e., Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Okl., 436 P.2d 654 (1967), (holding that claims for injury to property and for personal injury arising from a single tort were not separate causes) on the ground that we here deal with claims for injury to property and for loss of consortium In the present context, we are unable to discern a determinative distinction in that difference. The case is not listed in the index of Authorities in Casto's brief.
The primary purpose of the rule against claim splitting is to "afford the defendant protection from unnecessary vexation for a single tort and single liability." Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 654, 658 (Okla. 1967). Oklahoma courts apply a transactional definition to determine the scope of a plaintiff's "cause of action."
Under Oklahoma law, Defendant can only be subject to one suit for its alleged wrong which is involved in this litigation. Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1968). It is not believed that Defendant will be in any way prejudiced by this ruling.
A pending motion for such consolidation cannot be entertained by the State Court by reason of it being prohibited from further action in the two cases by reason of the removal to this Court effected by the Defendant. In this regard Defendant cites Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., Okla., 436 P.2d 654. This case holds: "From the foregoing it follows that the defendant has a right to be proceeded against in a single action by any injured party for his single wrong or tort, and that he is not to be subjected to defense of multiple actions arising from his single wrong or tort upon separate or separable items of damage arising from that single wrong or tort for which he has but a single liability."
It is the rule in Oklahoma that one may not, having a single indivisible cause of action, separately or successively sue thereon. See Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1968). However, the first suit between the parties herein was terminated by a dismissal without prejudice at Plaintiff's instance. Part of Plaintiff's claim against Defendant was paid, but there is nothing in the files and records of this case to show that this payment was a settlement in full of the Plaintiff's account.
United States v. Merrigan, 389 F.2d 21 (3 Cir. 1968). By being an independent federal right of action, the Oklahoma rule against splitting a single cause of action stated in Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1968), is not applicable to this case. The Court finds that the Plaintiff herein was in privity with the plaintiff in the state court case and the judgment entered therein.