Hamlin v. R.S.J. Transportation Co. ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 10 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DIXIE ALETA HAMLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
No. 02-5023
R.S.J. TRANSPORTATION (D.C. No.00-CV-484-B)
COMPANY, INC., a foreign (N.D. Oklahoma)
corporation; TEDDY L. GLAHA; and
CONTINENTAL WESTERN
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
insurer,
Defendants - Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY and McKAY, Circuit
Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This action arose from a collision involving Plaintiff’s vehicle and a truck
owned and operated by a trucking company. Plaintiff filed an action against the
truck driver, the trucking company, and its insurance company, alleging
negligence. Plaintiff’s action was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in
favor of Plaintiff, awarding her $180,000. The district court entered judgment
accordingly.
On appeal, Appellants claim that the trial court violated Oklahoma law by
allowing evidence and argument to be presented to the jury regarding the
existence of liability insurance. 1 Because Appellant failed to preserve this issue
for appeal, our review is for plain error.
In Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224, 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 1998), we
held that “joinder of the motor carrier and its insurer being proper in this case, the
general rule against references to liability insurance does not apply.” Id. at 1230(quoting Be-Mac Transport. Co. v. Lairmore, 129 P.2d 192, 194, 196 (1942)).
“[P]recedent of prior panels which this court must follow includes not only the
1
“It is not disputed in this action that Continental Western was properly
named as a party in this suit.” Aplt. Br. at 5. See also Okla. Stat. tit. 47, §
230.30; Jacobsen v. Howard, 23 P.23 185, 187 (Okla. 1933), Enders v. Longmire,
67 P.2d 12 (Okla. 1937). “It is beyond dispute that Oklahoma substantive law
holds that a joint action may be maintained against a tortfeasor motor carrier and
its insurer.” Id.-2-
very narrow holdings of those prior cases, but also the reasoning underlying those
holdings, particularly when such reasoning articulates a point of law.” United
States v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715, 720 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Otherwise, “this panel cannot overturn the decision of another panel of this
court.” Id. (citation omitted). In light of Blanke, we cannot find plain error. We
need not certify the question because of our decision in Blanke.
AFFIRMED. Appellants’ Motion to Certify Question of State Law is
DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-