¶ 1 Plaintiffs/Appellants Jill and Tom Rit-ter (the Ritters or Plaintiffs) seek review of the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant/Appel-lee The Bituminous Casualty Company (Bituminous or Defendant) on the Ritters’ negligence claim. Finding Bituminous neither owed nor breached any duty to the Plaintiffs, we hold the order of the trial court should be affirmed.

¶2 Wittwer Construction Company hired Gene Lile Devine in November 1999, and— pursuant to its policies and procedures— transmitted Devine’s name and driver’s license number to its insurance agent in order to determine Devine’s insurability.1 Witt-wer’s insurance agent transmitted Devine’s name and driver’s license number to Bituminous, and Bituminous — through an agency providing that service — obtained Devine’s Motor Vehicle Record (MVR), reflecting no driving offenses for the previous three years.

¶ 3 In May 2000, while operating an insured Wittwer vehicle, Devine collided with the vehicle driven by Mrs. Ritter, who suffered serious injury. The Ritters subsequently commenced the present action against Devine, Wittwer, and Bituminous, alleging negligence on the part of all three. *559As against Bituminous,2 they alleged negligence for “authorizing” and “allowing” De-vine to drive for Wittwer after conducting an MVR covering only the preceding three years and failing to explore Devine’s employment history.

¶ 4 Bituminous filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting no duty to the Ritters. Bituminous further asserted no breach of duty, if any there was, having obtained De-vine’s MVR for three years previous, the maximum permitted or available by statute. See, 36 O.S.1991 § 9423; 47 O.S. Supp.1999 § 6-117(H).4,5

¶ 6 The Ritters responded, presenting evi-dentiary materials argued to show that Witt-wer delegated to Bituminous the duty to inquire into the driving record of prospective employees, and to decide which of Wittwer’s prospective employees would be permitted to drive company vehicles, i.e., the duty to select reasonably competent drivers of company vehicles. See, Hudgens v. Cook Industries, Inc., 1973 OK 145, ¶ 18, 521 P.2d 813, 8166; Holland v. Dolese Co., 1982 OK 43, ¶ 10, 643 P.2d 317, 321.7 The Ritters further argued the evidentiary materials demonstrated that Bituminous breached its duty by failing to inquire into Devine’s more remote driving record which would have shown his history of two prior alcohol-related offenses in 1989 and 1994, and that Bituminous’ breach of duty caused or contributed to the Ritter’s injuries.

¶ 6 On consideration of the submitted authorities and materials, the trial court granted summary judgment to Bituminous. The Ritters appeal, and the matter stands submitted to this Court for accelerated review on the trial court record.8

¶ 7 Even if we accept as given the duty of Wittwer, as employer, to select reasonably competent drivers, and Wittwer’s potential *560liability to third persons for breach of that duty, we find no evidence that Wittwer delegated, or Bituminous undertook, any duty other than to determine whether Wittwer’s potential employees possessed a satisfactory driving record for insurance purposes only, and the fact that Bituminious may have agreed to insure “key” or “critical” Wittwer employees with less than a stellar driving record does not, in our opinion, broaden that duty as the Ritters aver. In this respect, Bituminous could not, by force of statute, base its decision whether to insure potential Wittwer employees on a driving record older than three years. 36 O.S. § 942(A). Indeed, if Bituminous based its decision otherwise, it faced the potential loss of its certifícate of authority to transact business in this state. 36 O.S. § 942(B). Under these facts and circumstances, we cannot say the trial court erred in granting Bituminous’ motion for summary judgment.

¶ 8 The order of the trial court is therefore AFFIRMED.