THOMAS & GOZA v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

¶1 After Defendant/Appellant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company failed to answer or object to Plaintiff/Appellee Maryann Thomas's requests for admission, the trial court deemed the matters admitted and granted summary judgment to Thomas. We hold that, on the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Liberty's request to withdraw the admissions and erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Thomas.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Plaintiff/Appellee Maryann Thomas was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 6, 2020. On March 12, 2021, Thomas filed the underlying lawsuit. She sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage from Liberty for her injuries.

¶3 Attorney Stephanie K. Corbett of the Law Office of Aimee J. Treece filed an answer on behalf of Liberty on April 27, 2021. On May 14, 2021, Corbett filed her entry of appearance. Soon after, Corbett left Treece's firm. Treece retired in December 2021, and Laurie J. Fong took over the firm. Corbett did not file a motion to withdraw, and no one else entered an appearance on behalf of Liberty.

¶4 Thomas's attorney sent Corbett discovery, including requests for admission, on June 9, 2022 at what had become Fong's law firm. The responses were due July 9, 2022. On June 13, 2022, a secretary at Fong's law firm notified Thomas's attorney that William W. O'Connor was now representing Liberty. O'Connor and Margo E. Shipley entered appearances on behalf of Liberty on June 29, 2022. Despite having never entered an appearance in the case, Fong filed a motion to withdraw on July 8, 2022, which was granted by the trial court on August 2, 2022. In her motion to withdraw, Fong explained O'Connor was also involved in a related declaratory judgment action in federal court.

¶5 One year later, on June 20, 2023, Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for UM/UIM coverage. Thomas argued that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3236

¶6 Liberty filed its response to Thomas's motion for summary judgment on July 10, 2023. Liberty asserted new counsel had no knowledge of the requests for admission sent to Corbett at Fong's office on June 9, 2022 until Thomas filed her motion for summary judgment one year later. Liberty submitted that Thomas's counsel had been informed that Corbett no longer represented Liberty and that Liberty's current attorneys had entered appearances before the responses were due. Yet, Thomas's attorney did not notify new counsel of the pending requests, serve Liberty's new counsel, meet and confer when Liberty did not respond, or file a motion to compel. Liberty asked the trial court not to deem the requests admitted, and, even if deemed admitted, to allow Liberty to withdraw the admissions.

¶7 Liberty also filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the related federal declaratory judgment action. On August 23, 2023, the trial court deferred ruling on Thomas's motion for summary judgment and stayed discovery, specifically, "Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's June 9, 2022 discovery requests, until such time as the federal court . . . issues a ruling on the issue of whether Defendant's subject insurance Policy provides coverage for any claim by Plaintiff for damages resulting from the automobile accident that occurred on October 6, 2020." The federal court declined jurisdiction on September 5, 2024 and never issued a ruling. Then, on January 30, 2025, Liberty filed its own motion for summary judgment in the underlying state court case.

¶8 The trial court granted Thomas's motion for summary judgment and denied Liberty's motion for summary judgment on October 13, 2025. In a disjointed Journal Entry of Judgment, the trial court begins by making pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the terms of the policy. see 12 O.S. § 952

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶9 Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Rickard v. Coulimore, 2022 OK 9505 P.3d 920Id. Appellate courts have plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal rulings. See Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 785 P.3d 841

¶10 A trial court's denial of a request to withdraw or amend admissions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Heath v. Engle, 2005 OK 68123 P.3d 1Bjorkman v. Noble, 2025 OK 62579 P.3d 602Okla. City Zoological Tr. v. State, 2007 OK 21158 P.3d 461

ANALYSIS

¶11 On appeal, Liberty argues the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting it to withdraw the admissions and, therefore, erred by granting summary judgment to Thomas.

¶12 The Oklahoma Discovery Code provides, in part:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION. A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Section 3226 of this title set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. . . . The matter is admitted unless, within thirty (30) days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney.

12 O.S.Supp.2019 § 3236

EFFECT OF ADMISSION. Any matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him or her in maintaining his or her action or defense on the merits.

Id. § 3236(B). According to the statute, there are two considerations to be made in determining whether Liberty should be permitted to withdraw the admissions: (1) whether presentation of the merits would be subserved thereby; and (2) whether withdrawal or amendment will prejudice Thomas in maintaining her action on the merits. Additionally,

[i]n deciding whether, on the facts of a particular case, to permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions, courts have considered factors such as whether the facts deemed admitted are dispositive of the issues in the case, whether the admissions were made as a result of counsel's negligence or mistake of law, and whether the requesting party had notice from the pleadings that the subject matter of the requests might be contested at trial. . . . Courts which have refused on the facts of a particular case to permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions . . . have considered factors such as the stage of the litigation at which the motion to withdraw or amend was made and the degree to which withdrawal would have resulted in prejudice to the party who obtained the admission, and whether the party making the admissions could have protected his interests by objecting to the requests for admissions.

64 A.L.R. Fed. 746 (footnotes omitted); see Heath, 2005 OK 68Ross v. Pace, 2004 OK 1387 P.3d 593

¶13 First, we find allowing Liberty to withdraw the admissions would subserveSee Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK 2521 P.3d 48See id.; Raiser v. Utah County, 409 F.3d 1243, 1246 (10^th Cir. 2005) (permitting defendant to withdraw deemed admissions that conceded core elements of the plaintiff's case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(d)). The central and dispositive issue in this case is whether the policy provided UM/UIM coverage for Thomas's injuries. Thomas's motion for summary judgment as to liability was predicated entirely on the deemed admissions. Thomas did not even include a copy of the policy with her evidentiary materials supporting her motion. Thomas relied on Liberty's admission that she requested to purchase an umbrella policy which would have provided UM/UIM coverage for her injuries. Liberty, on the other hand, attached a copy of the policy to its response to Thomas's motion for summary judgment. Liberty contended Thomas had a personal excess liability policy that expressly excluded UM/UIM coverage for Thomas's personal injuries. Whether the parties had a contract for UM/UIM coverage is hotly disputed. Finding the material facts were undisputed "based solely on the deemed factual admissions" eliminated the trial court's opportunity to consider other record evidence, including the policy terms, to determine if there was a genuine controversy as to any material fact.

¶14 Next, Thomas has not demonstrated any prejudice in maintaining her action. She had notice from the pleadings that the issue of whether the policy included UM/UIM coverage would be contested at trial. See Bergemann v. United States, 820 F.2d 1117, 1121 (10^th Cir. 1987) (finding no prejudice when the requesting party knew the other party challenged the issue deemed admitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(d)). This case is in the early stage of litigation. Thomas will still have the opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery and file a second motion for summary judgment.

¶15 In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a party's request to withdraw or amend an admission, this Court has given weight to the number of opportunities the party had to respond to the requests for admission and whether there was hardship or another reason the party was unable to timely answer the requests. See Heath, 2005 OK 68Ross, 2004 OK 13see also 64 A.L.R. Fed. 746 (noting courts have considered whether "the admission was a result of counsel's negligence or mistake of law").

¶16 Liberty has demonstrated valid reasons for not answering the requests for admission. Primarily, Liberty's counsel did not have knowledge of the pending requests. On June 9, 2022, when Thomas sent Liberty her requests for admission at what had become Fong's firm, Corbett was the attorney of record. Fong's firm immediately advised Thomas's attorney that Liberty's attorney of record was no longer employed with the firm and that O'Connor was now representing Liberty. O'Connor and Shipley entered appearances on behalf of Liberty on June 29, 2022. At the time they filed their appearances, the answers to the requests for admission were not due for ten days. However, Thomas's counsel did not serve the requests for admission on Liberty's new attorneys or contact them to ensure they had received the requests for admission from Fong's office. Counsel for Thomas agreed to Fong's withdrawal without advising Fong, current counsel, or the trial court about the past due requests for admission. Thomas's counsel did not inquire with Liberty's counsel about the lack of response after the deadline passed. Thomas's counsel did nothing for an entire year. As the trial court found, O'Connor and Shipley, at no fault of their own, did not learn of the requests for admission until Thomas filed her motion for summary judgment.

¶17 In Ross v. Pace, 2004 OK 1387 P.3d 593 and Heath v. Engle, 2005 OK 68123 P.3d 1Ross and Heath. First and foremost, it was undisputed that the attorneys in Ross and Heath had knowledge of the pending requests for admission and failed to timely answer. Here, it is undisputed Liberty's counsel had no knowledge of the requests for admission until Thomas filed her motion for summary judgment one year after the answers were due.

¶18 Second, in Ross and Heath, the Court emphasized the parties had several opportunities to respond. Liberty did not. In the lead cases, counsel attempted to follow up with opposing counsel soon after the deadline passed. In Ross, counsel followed up with a letter, provided a second copy of the requests for admissions to the other attorney, and inquired about when he would respond prior to filing a motion for summary judgment. There was a total lack of responsiveness in Ross. The attorney in Ross did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment and failed to appear at the hearing on the motion. Only after the trial court granted summary judgment did counsel seek to withdraw or amend the admissions. On the contrary, Liberty did not have such opportunities to respond. Liberty had no knowledge of the initial requests and Thomas's counsel made no attempt to follow up. Liberty sought to protect its interests at the first opportunity. Immediately upon learning of the requests for admissions through Thomas's motion for summary judgment, Liberty implored the trial court not to deem the facts admitted or, alternatively, permit Liberty to withdraw the admissions.

¶19 Unsurprisingly, when a lawsuit results in summary judgment based on deemed admissions, the admissions go to material facts. It is self-evident that the presentation of the merits would be subserved by allowing the other party to withdraw or amend such admissions. Summary judgment granted early in the litigation will generally not be prejudicial. It is when a party has multiple opportunities to respond and cannot demonstrate hardship or acceptable reasons for failing to respond that this Court has affirmed the trial court's refusal to allow withdrawal or amendment of deemed admissions. Unlike the attorneys in Heath and Ross, who had multiple opportunities to respond and "made no showing of hardship or other reason that she was unable to timely answer the requests for admission," counsel in this case had compelling reasons for not responding. Heath, 2005 OK 69see Ross, 2004 OK 13

CONCLUSION

¶20 Requests for admissions are a legitimate tool in our quest for the truth. Failure to timely respond to such requests is worthy of judicial oversight. However, the facts of this case do not nearly warrant a death penalty sanction for not answering. The order of the district court granting partial summary judgment to Thomas is reversed, and, on remand, the district court is instructed to permit Liberty to withdraw the admissions.

ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

¶1 I write to elaborate on and emphasize the procedural history that underscores Plaintiff Maryann Thomas' Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Liberty Mutual Company and the trial court's order granting the same. On March 12, 2021, Thomas filed suit in Oklahoma County against Markie Len Gray, Progressive Direct Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to recover damages incurred when Thomas was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 6, 2020. With respect to Liberty Mutual, Thomas alleged that Defendant Gray's liability insurance was insufficient to pay for the damage she incurred and that she was entitled to recover the policy limits of a policy she held with Liberty Mutual (Policy). Liberty Mutual filed an Answer denying all relevant allegations on April 27, 2021.

¶2 On May 14, 2021, Attorney Stephanie Corbett of the Law Office of Aimee J. Treece entered an appearance on behalf of Liberty Mutual. Corbett left the firm in May or June of 2021 but did not withdraw from the case. Subsequently, the named partner of the firm retired, Attorney Laurie Fong took over the firm, and the firm was renamed to the Law Offices of Laurie Fong. The following mailing address was consistently used in filings for this firm: P.O. Box 7218, London, KY 40742. The Law Offices of Laurie Fong is "an office in the Liberty Mutual Staff Counsel organization, which is part of the Liberty Mutual Corporate Legal Department." Declaration of Laurie A. Fong at ¶ 1, Exhibit 4 to Liberty Mutual's Response in Opposition to Thomas' Motion for Summary Judgment.

¶3 Roughly eight months after the filing of the state court action, on November 11, 2021, Liberty Mutual filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking a legal determination that Thomas' Policy provides no underinsured motorist coverage or other coverage for any claim by Thomas for damages resulting from the accident. Liberty Mutual was represented by Attorneys William O'Connor and Margo Shipley in this federal action. Neither O'Connor nor Shipley entered an appearance in the state court action. Thomas moved to dismiss the federal action in February of 2022.

¶4 On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff sent a set of discovery requests, containing eight requests for admission (RFAs), to Liberty Mutual. The RFAs sought to have Liberty Mutual admit the following facts:

(1) the insurance agent who sold the Policy to Thomas was acting as Liberty Mutual's agent;

(2) prior to the accident, Thomas requested a $1,000,000 umbrella policy with coverage which would have provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for the negligence of Defendant Gray;

(3) Thomas requested Liberty Mutual sell her a $1,000,000 umbrella policy which would have covered the injuries she sustained in the accident;

(4) Liberty Mutual never provided Thomas with the Policy she purchased prior to the accident;

(5) prior to the accident, Liberty Mutual offered policies of umbrella insurance to the public in the amount of $1,000,000 which policies provided its insureds UM/UIM coverage in addition to its insureds' automobile UM/UIM coverage;

(6) Liberty Mutual owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Thomas to provide her with the umbrella insurance which she requested to purchase;

(7) Liberty Mutual did not advise Thomas of the kind of insurance it now says it sold her, until after she made a claim with Liberty Mutual for the injuries suffered in the accident; and

(8) Liberty Mutual did not send Thomas a copy of her Policy of umbrella insurance after she purchased the Policy.

The RFAs were sent to Corbett--the only attorney of record for Liberty Mutual in the state case--by certified mail to the firm's address and by email to [email protected].

¶5 On June 20, 2023, Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment against Liberty Mutual on the issue of liability. The motion relied heavily on the fact that Liberty Mutual had failed to timely respond to the RFAs, and they were statutorily deemed admitted. Specifically, Thomas argued that she requested and was told by a Liberty Mutual agent that her umbrella policy would include UM/UIM motorist coverage up to $1,000,000. Thomas therefore argued that Liberty Mutual should be bound by its agent's representations, and that Liberty Mutual is liable to Thomas for the Policy not being procured as requested or as promised.

¶6 In response to the motion for summary judgment, Liberty Mutual argued the RFAs should not be deemed admitted and the Policy coverage was disputed. In the event the RFAs were deemed admitted, Liberty Mutual asked the Court to stay discovery "pending the resolution" of the related federal declaratory judgment action filed by Liberty Mutual. But, if the Court declined to stay discovery, Liberty Mutual requested thirty days to respond to the June 9, 2022 discovery requests (including the RFAs). Liberty Mutual did not file a formal motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. On the same day it filed its response to Thomas' motion for summary judgment, Liberty Mutual filed a separate Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Federal Declaratory Judgment Action. Specifically, Liberty Mutual sought a stay "pending the outcome" of the federal action.

¶7 On August 23, 2023, the trial court entered an order deferring ruling on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and staying discovery in the case (including Liberty Mutual's responses to Plaintiff's June 9, 2022 discovery requests) "until such time as the federal court" issued "a ruling" on the issue of whether the Policy provides coverage "for any claim by Plaintiff for damages resulting from the automobile accident that occurred on October 6, 2020." The Court also deferred ruling on Liberty Mutual's request to withdraw the admissions.

¶8 The Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the federal action approximately one year later on September 5, 2024. On January 30, 2025, Liberty Mutual filed a short "Notice of Federal Court Decision" and its own Motion for Summary Judgment. Thomas responded and requested her own motion for summary judgment be set for hearing. The assigned judge retired, and the case was reassigned on March 6, 2025.

¶9 Both Thomas' and Liberty Mutual's motions for summary judgment were heard on April 17, 2025. At the hearing, the trial court judge denied Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment and granted Thomas' motion for summary judgment.

¶10 The resulting journal entry was entered on October 13, 2025.

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

¶11 As an initial matter, the RFAs were properly served on Liberty Mutual by mailing them to the last-known address of an attorney of record (Corbett). 12 O.S. § 200512 O.S. § 3236The matter is admitted unless, within thirty (30) days after service of the request,... the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party's attorney.") This statute is unqualified. Requests for Admissions are unique in that they have a built-in sanction for failing to cooperate in discovery. Compare 12 O.S. § 3236with 12 O.S. § 3237

¶12 To the contrary, such admissions are "conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." 12 O.S. § 3236

¶13 Moreover, it is entirely within the trial judge's discretion whether or not to permit a withdrawal or amendment of an admission. Id. ("The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him or her in maintaining his or her action or defense on the merits." (emphasis added)). We are not privy to the trial court's analysis of the statutory factors permitting withdrawal because Liberty Mutual, who drafted the court's order, did not include it in the order. Nevertheless, withdrawal is entirely discretionary.

¶14 The majority opinion acknowledges that the trial court's decision to refuse withdrawal of the admissions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. But the majority rewards Liberty Mutual for all of its mistakes and the confusion it caused, to the detriment of Thomas, by weighing the withdrawal factors itself. The majority ultimately gives Liberty Mutual the benefit of its blunders by determining the merits will be served by permitting withdrawal of the admissions and that Thomas will not be prejudiced by having to pursue her lawsuit on the merits. Our review for an abuse of discretion does not allow this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are unsupported by proof, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors." Bjorkman v. Noble, 2025 OK 62579 P.3d 602

¶15 Here, Thomas properly served the requests. The only breakdown of communication was between Liberty Mutual's Corporate Legal Department, its Oklahoma City counsel, and its Tulsa counsel. There is no basis for imposing a burden on Thomas to re-serve discovery requests on new counsel when Liberty Mutual was already properly served. Nor is there a duty to send a letter or meet and confer prior to the RFAs being deemed admitted. It was the obligation of Liberty Mutual's counsel to transmit the entire case file, including pending discovery request, to new counsel in the course of a change in representation. Upon realizing it had failed to respond to Plaintiff's RFAs, Liberty Mutual unreasonably delayed in submitting responses to Plaintiff or filing a motion to withdraw or amend. Instead, it submitted a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment which sought withdrawal as an alternative means of relief. And Liberty Mutual still has not provided formal responses. In short, due to Liberty Mutual's failures and delay, Plaintiff Thomas' case has been unreasonably delayed for years.

¶16 With the requests for admission being properly deemed admitted, I would deny Liberty Mutual's Petition for Certiorari. This is an interlocutory order, and the trial court still maintains discretion to modify or vacate this order.

¶1 I agree that partial summary judgment in MaryAnn Thomas' favor should be reversed because the trial court did not consider and rule on Defendant's request to withdraw its admission. 12 O.S. § 3236

I.

¶2 Parties may serve "written request for the admission . . . of the truth of any matters within the scope of [12 O.S. § 322612 O.S. § 3236Id. "Any matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission." Id. § 3226(B). A trial court has discretion to allow the withdrawal of an admission (1) if withdrawal will subserve (or promote) "the presentation of the merits of the action" and (2) "the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him or her in maintaining his or her action or defense on the merits." Id.

¶3 The Majority recognizes that a trial court's decision whether to allow the withdrawal of admissions is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Appellate review to determine if the trial court abused its discretion requires "an actual antecedent exercise of that judicial discretion by the trial court." State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31489 P.3d 36In re Guardianship of Stanfield, 2012 OK 8276 P.3d 989

II.

¶4 In this case, it does not appear that the trial court applied the factors set forth in 12 O.S. § 3226

¶5 It does not seem that the trial court ruled on Liberty Mutual's motion to withdraw its admissions, which is unsurprising considering the form of Liberty Mutual's request. There is nothing in the trial court's order granting summary judgment indicating that it considered Liberty Mutual's withdrawal request as permitted by 12 O.S. § 322612 O.S. § 3226

¶6 Allowing the trial court to consider the admission withdrawal issue conforms with the text of 12 O.S. § 323612 O.S. § 3236

III.

¶7 The Discovery Code is employed "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." 12 O.S. § 3225

* * *

¶8 I respectfully dissent from the Majority's conclusion that Liberty Mutual should have been allowed to withdraw its admission. I would remand this case to the trial court to decide the admission withdrawal issue.