2026 OK 53
Okla.2026Background
- Community bought property insurance from Berkshire Hathaway through Messer-Bowers and later filed a hail-damage claim after a May 2022 storm. 1
- After months of communications, Berkshire Hathaway hired Haag Engineering to perform additional inspections of Community's property in March and April 2024. 2
- Community sued Berkshire Hathaway for breach of contract and bad faith, and Messer-Bowers for misrepresentation, then added Haag for tortious interference and civil conspiracy. 3
- Haag moved to dismiss, arguing it acted for the insurer and owed no actionable duty to Community; the district court denied the motion and certified interlocutory review. 4
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Community's claims against Haag were viable under Oklahoma law. 5
- The Court reversed, holding Haag acted as Berkshire Hathaway's representative in the claim inspection and therefore could not be liable on Community's theories. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Haag be liable for tortious interference with Community's insurance contract? 7 | Community alleged Haag distorted its inspection to help Berkshire Hathaway minimize or deny the claim. | Haag acted for the insurer in inspecting and reporting, so it could not interfere with that contract. | No; Haag was a privileged representative, so the claim fails as a matter of law. 8 |
| Can Community maintain civil conspiracy against Haag based on the same conduct? 9 | Community alleged Haag conspired with Berkshire Hathaway to reduce insured damages. | Without an underlying unlawful act, conspiracy cannot stand against Haag. | No; the conspiracy claim fails because the underlying interference claim fails and Haag's acts were privileged. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. Jimmy D. Enters., Ltd., 912 P.2d 852 (Okla. 1996) (defines reviewability of certified interlocutory orders 11)
- Pierson v. Canupp, 754 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1988) (explains that the controversy's merits means the real grounds of the action or defense 12)
- Mac Adjustment, Inc. v. Prop. Loss Rsch. Bureau, 595 P.2d 427 (Okla. 1979) (states tortious interference elements, including lack of justification 13)
- Voiles v. Santa Fe Mins., Inc., 911 P.2d 1205 (Okla. 1996) (a representative acting for a contracting party cannot be liable for interference 14)
- Ray v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 894 P.2d 1056 (Okla. 1994) (a party acting in a representative capacity cannot wrongfully interfere with its principal's contract 15)
- Brock v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1997) (civil conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act or unlawful means 16)
- Trinity Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Servs., 341 P.3d 75 (Okla. 2014) (an independent adjuster owes no separate duty to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation 17)
- Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 653 P.2d 907 (Okla. 1982) (an insurer's duties cannot be delegated to a third party 18)
- Wathor v. Mut. Assurance Adm'rs, Inc., 87 P.3d 559 (Okla. 2004) (the insurer remains liable when an adjuster performs an inadequate investigation 19)
- Council Tower Ass'n v. Axis Specialty Ins. Co., 630 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2011) (an investigator's report to the insurer did not show lack of justification 20)
- Henderson v. Day Eng'g Consultants, 560 P.3d 684 (Okla. Civ. App. 2024) (extends Trinity's reasoning to contractually retained professionals 21)