566 P.3d 577
Okla.2025Background
- Jeremy and Melinda Rowan’s home was damaged in a storm; they filed an insurance claim with State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
- State Farm initially paid part of the claim but refused further payment, which led the Rowans to file suit for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith.
- A jury found in favor of the Rowans on both claims, awarding $750,400.
- The Rowans then sought attorney fees and costs under Okla. Stat. Title 36, Section 3629(B).
- The district court denied the request, interpreting the statute to require that the insured submit proof of loss in writing.
- The Rowans appealed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal, reversed the district court, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 3629(B) requires a written proof of loss for attorney fees/costs | Rowans argued the statute does not require a written proof of loss for awarding attorney fees/costs; only a claim submission is needed | State Farm claimed the statute requires submission of written proof of loss before attorney fees/costs can be awarded | The court held that Section 3629(B) does not require insureds to file written proof of loss to be eligible for attorney fees/costs |
| Interpretation of Section 3629 in light of other insurance code provisions | Statute’s plain language governs; no additional requirements should be added | Statute should be harmonized with other provisions to require written proof | Court found statute is unambiguous; no requirement for insured’s written proof of loss in Section 3629(B) |
| Reliance on Hamilton v. Northfield Insurance Co. regarding written submissions | Any language in Hamilton was not intended to add new requirements absent from statute | Asserted Hamilton created a written proof requirement | Court clarified Hamilton did not address or decide the proof of loss submission format |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and costs | Jury verdict for Rowans, statute entitles prevailing insured to fees/costs | Denied by State Farm based on statutory interpretation | District court reversed; Rowans entitled to fee/cost determination below |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Northfield Insurance Co., 473 P.3d 22 (Okla. 2020) (interpreted Section 3629’s timing for settlement offers; did not create a written proof of loss requirement)
- Comanche Nation of Okla. ex rel. Comanche Nation Tourism Ctr. v. Coffey, 480 P.3d 271 (Okla. 2020) (articulates de novo review standard for statutory interpretation)
- Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2005) (plain language of statute controls unless ambiguity exists)
- Herrera-Chacon v. State, 523 P.3d 480 (Okla. 2023) (plain language statutory construction where legislative intent is clear)