Wahpepah v. Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
OPALA, Justice.
¶ 1 The dispositive question we are asked to decide today is whether an insurer who has accepted workers’ compensation policy premiums computed on the claimant’s salary may deny the insured’s status as a covered employer. We answer in the negative.
¶2 Auchee Wahpepah (Wahpepah or claimant) sought benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while she was employed by the Kiekapoo Tribe of Oklahoma (Tribe). Tribe had secured a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund (Fund). Fund’s answer to Wah-pepah’s claim denies that the accident arose out of and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- National Bank of Tulsa Bldg. v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- State Insurance Fund v. BrooksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Fox v. National CarrierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Miller v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976
- Dominic v. Creek Nation, State Insurance FundSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Waltrip v. Osage Million Dollar Elm CasinoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012
- Shorter v. Tulsa Used Equipment & Industrial Engine ServicesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Hall v. Cherokee NationCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2007
- Pales v. Cherokee Nation EnterprisesCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2009
- Allen v. Lenape Lure Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.