Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5 (2026)

Exclusive liability - Immunity

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to the provisions of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee, his or her legal representative, dependents, next of kin, or anyone else claiming rights to recovery on behalf of the employee against the employer, including a general contractor that provides workers’ compensation insurance coverage to a subcontractor pursuant to Section 2 of this act, or any principal, officer, director, employee, stockholder, partner, or prime contractor of the employer on account of injury, illness, or death. Negligent acts of a co- employee may not be imputed to the employer. No role, capacity, or persona of any employer, principal, officer, director, employee, or stockholder other than that existing in the role of employer of the employee shall be relevant for consideration for purposes of the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, and the remedies and rights provided by the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act to an employee or other person claiming rights to recovery on behalf of the employee shall be exclusive regardless of the multiple roles, capacities, or personas the employer may be deemed to have. B. Notwithstanding the date of the injury, illness, or death of an employee, the provisions of subsection A of this section shall not affect any provision in an executed contract that requires the employer, or any principal, officer, director, stockholder, partner, or prime contractor of the employer, to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless another person or entity against liability for the injury, illness, or death of an employee, including, but not limited to, the ability or requirement to insure for such claims. C. Exclusive remedy shall not apply if: 1. An employer fails to secure the payment of compensation due to the employee as required by the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. An injured employee, or his or her legal representative in case death results from the injury, may, at his or her option, elect to claim compensation under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act or to maintain a legal action in court for damages on account of the injury or death; or 2. The injury was caused by an intentional tort committed by the employer. An intentional tort shall exist only when the employee is injured as a result of willful, deliberate, specific intent of the employer to cause such injury. Allegations or proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer’s conduct shall not constitute

an intentional tort. The employee shall plead facts that show it is at least as likely as it is not that the employer acted with the purpose of injuring the employee. The issue of whether an act is an intentional tort shall be a question of law. D. The immunity from civil liability described in subsection A of this section shall apply regardless of whether the injured employee is denied compensation or deemed ineligible to receive compensation under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. E. If an employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation for his or her injured employee as provided for in the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured employee, or his or her legal representative if death results from the injury, may maintain an action in the district court for damages on account of such injury. F. Except as provided in Section 2 of this act, the immunity created by the provisions of this section shall not extend to action against another employer, or its employees, on the same job as the injured or deceased worker where such other employer does not stand in the position of an intermediate or principal employer to the immediate employer of the injured or deceased worker. G. Except as provided in Section 2 of this act, the immunity created by the provisions of this section shall not extend to action against another employer, or its employees, on the same job as the injured or deceased worker even though such other employer may be considered as standing in the position of a special master of a loaned servant where such special master neither is the immediate employer of the injured or deceased worker nor stands in the position of an intermediate or principal employer to the immediate employer of the injured or deceased worker. H. This section shall not be construed to abrogate the loaned servant doctrine in any respect other than that described in subsection G of this section. Nothing in the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act shall be construed to relieve the employer from any other penalty provided for in the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act for failure to secure the payment of compensation under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. I. For the purpose of extending the immunity of this section, any architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor shall be deemed an intermediate or principal employer for services performed at or on the site of a construction project, but this immunity shall not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications. J. If the employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation as provided in the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act or in the case of an intentional tort, the injured employee or his or her legal representative may maintain an action either before

the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission or in the district court, but not both. Added by Laws 2013, c. 208, § 5, eff. Feb. 1, 2014. Amended by Laws 2019, c. 476, § 3, emerg. eff. May 28, 2019; Laws 2025, c. 293, § 1, emerg. eff. May 23, 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019).
Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019). · cites it 14× “§ 12 and the current version of 85A O.S. § 5 state: "Allegations of proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct shall not constitute an intentional tort.”
Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024). · cites it 108× “We hold: (1) The exclusive remedy and liability language in 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles, but those relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the…”
Lind v. Barnes Tag Agency, Inc., 418 P.3d 698 (Okla. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 8 It is this language that extends immunity where it had not previously existed, not the fact that 85A O.S.Supp.2017 § 5 now includes the word "stockholder.”
Tiger v. Verdigris Valley Elec. Coop., 2016 OK 74 (Okla. 2016). · cites it 2× “The same definition of intentional tort was carried forward in 2011 when the Oklahoma Legislature repealed section 12 and inserted the definition into section 302. Okla Stat.”
Tiger v. Verdigris Valley Elec. Coop., 410 P.3d 1007 (Okla. 2016). “Okla Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(2) (Supp. 2014).”
Gibby v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 2017 OK 78 (Okla. 2017). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(C) (Supp. 2013).”
Mullendore v. Mercy Hosp. Ardmore, 438 P.3d 358 (Okla. 2019). “3d 369 , 376 (declaring the last sentence of 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 5(A) an unconstitutional special law); John v.”
Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins., 645 F. App'x 733 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “3d at 578 ; see Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A). However, where an employer’s wrongdoing goes beyond negligence to intentional misconduct that results in harm, the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision will not bar a suit for damages.”
Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., 893 F.3d 739 (10th Cir. 2018). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A). It goes on, however, to say "[n]o role, capacity, or persona of any .”
Anaya-smith v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 2024 OK 34 (Okla. 2024). · cites it 18× “Smith cannot recover under the policy because the worker's compensation exclusive remedy provision of 85A O.S. § 5, bars suit against the employer, does that vehicle qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of 36 O.”
Ira Martel v. Connor Contracting, Inc., Jason Clark, & Stephen Connor, 200 A.3d 160 (Vt. 2018). “2d 1253 ; Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(2). 10 These decisions do not necessarily equate the applicability of the workers' compensation statute and the scope of the exclusivity provision in the way Kittell did.”
Mullendore v. Mercy Hosp. Ardmore, 2019 OK 11 (Okla. 2019). “3d 369 , 376 (declaring the last sentence of 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 5(A) an unconstitutional special law); John v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A) — 15 cases
Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019). “§ 12 and the current version of 85A O.S. § 5 state: "Allegations of proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct shall not constitute an intentional tort.”
Mullendore v. Mercy Hosp. Ardmore, 438 P.3d 358 (Okla. 2019). “3d 369 , 376 (declaring the last sentence of 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 5(A) an unconstitutional special law); John v.”
Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., 893 F.3d 739 (10th Cir. 2018). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A). It goes on, however, to say "[n]o role, capacity, or persona of any .”
Lind v. Barnes Tag Agency, Inc., 418 P.3d 698 (Okla. 2018). “" 8 It is this language that extends immunity where it had not previously existed, not the fact that 85A O.S.Supp.2017 § 5 now includes the word "stockholder.”
Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024). “We hold: (1) The exclusive remedy and liability language in 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles, but those relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B) — 2 cases
Bayouth v. Dewberry, 2024 OK 42 (Okla. 2024).
Kpiele-poda v. Patterson-uti Energy, 2023 OK 11 (Okla. 2023).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(1) — 3 cases
Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019). “§ 12 and the current version of 85A O.S. § 5 state: "Allegations of proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct shall not constitute an intentional tort.”
Progressive N. Ins. v. Peavler (10th Cir. 2019).
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(2) — 10 cases
Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019). “§ 12 and the current version of 85A O.S. § 5 state: "Allegations of proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct shall not constitute an intentional tort.”
Tiger v. Verdigris Valley Elec. Coop., 2016 OK 74 (Okla. 2016). “The same definition of intentional tort was carried forward in 2011 when the Oklahoma Legislature repealed section 12 and inserted the definition into section 302. Okla Stat.”
Tiger v. Verdigris Valley Elec. Coop., 410 P.3d 1007 (Okla. 2016). “Okla Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(2) (Supp. 2014).”
Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins., 645 F. App'x 733 (10th Cir. 2016). “3d at 578 ; see Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(A). However, where an employer’s wrongdoing goes beyond negligence to intentional misconduct that results in harm, the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision will not bar a suit for damages.”
Knox v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024). “We hold: (1) The exclusive remedy and liability language in 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles, but those relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(B)(2)(2013) — 1 case
Wells v. Oklahoma Roofing & Sheet Metal, 2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019). “§ 12 and the current version of 85A O.S. § 5 state: "Allegations of proof that the employer had knowledge that the injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct shall not constitute an intentional tort.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(C) — 3 cases
Gibby v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 2017 OK 78 (Okla. 2017). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(C) (Supp. 2013).”
Gibby v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 2017 OK 78 (Okla. 2017).
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(C)(2) — 2 cases
Hassebroek (W.D. Okla. 2025).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(D) — 1 case
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(I) — 2 cases
Kpiele-poda v. Patterson-uti Energy, 2023 OK 11 (Okla. 2023).
Bayouth v. Dewberry, 2024 OK 42 (Okla. 2024).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5(c) — 1 case
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (E.D. Okla. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.