Background
Community Resourcing, Inc., which operates a food and resource center in Payne County, Oklahoma, held a property insurance policy through Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance. After a hailstorm on May 5, 2022 damaged the property, Community filed a claim. During the ensuing claims process, Berkshire Hathaway retained Haag Engineering Company and its engineer Chris Hickman to conduct additional inspections of the property, which Haag performed in March and April 2024.
Community filed suit in March 2025 against the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, and against its insurance agent for misrepresentation. Community subsequently amended its petition to add claims against Haag for tortious interference with the insurance contract and civil conspiracy, alleging that Haag submitted findings supporting the insurer’s position rather than conducting a truthful inspection, motivated by a financial interest in preserving its business relationship with Berkshire Hathaway.
Haag moved to dismiss, arguing it could not be liable for tortious interference because it was acting as a representative of the insurer—a party to the very contract at issue. The district court of Payne County denied the motion but certified the order for interlocutory review. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether Community’s claims against Haag were viable under Oklahoma law.
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the district court and remanded, holding that both claims against Haag fail as a matter of law. On the tortious interference claim, the Court applied the well-established rule from Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 1996 OK 13, and Ray v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 1994 OK 100, that a person or entity acting in a representative capacity for a party to a contract cannot be held liable for tortiously interfering with that contract. Because Community’s own allegations established that Berkshire Hathaway hired Haag solely to inspect the property as part of the claims evaluation—with Berkshire Hathaway retaining the ultimate authority over the coverage decision—Haag was acting as the insurer’s representative and was therefore shielded from liability as a matter of law.
The Court further held that Haag’s contractual engagement with the insurer independently defeated the “lack of justification” element of a tortious interference claim. Haag was obligated by contract to perform the inspection; its actions were inherently justified and privileged. The Court also drew on Trinity Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Services, 2014 OK 106, which established that insurers’ core claims-handling duties are non-delegable and that imposing separate tort duties on third-party investigators would risk improper double recovery against both the insurer and the investigator for the same conduct.
On the civil conspiracy claim, the Court held it fell with the tortious interference claim. Under Oklahoma law, civil conspiracy is not an independent tort; it requires an underlying unlawful act or unlawful means. Because Haag’s inspection activities were legally privileged as a contractually retained representative, there was no unlawful predicate act on which a conspiracy claim could rest. Justices Combs and Gurich dissented, arguing that the representative-capacity immunity should not apply where the insured alleged Haag acted partly for its own financial interests, and that Trinity Baptist should not be extended to bar intentional tort claims.
Key Takeaways
- Under Oklahoma law, a third-party professional—such as an engineering firm—retained by an insurer to inspect property as part of a claims evaluation acts in a representative capacity for the insurer and cannot be sued for tortious interference with the underlying insurance contract.
- A tortious interference claim requires showing the interference was unjustified; a contractor performing an inspection pursuant to its agreement with the insurer acts with inherent justification, defeating that element as a matter of law.
- Civil conspiracy claims against a retained third-party investigator fail when the predicate tort (tortious interference) is itself legally barred—Oklahoma civil conspiracy requires an independently unlawful act or means.
- The Trinity Baptist non-delegable-duty framework, extended here from negligence to intentional torts by the majority, protects insurers’ third-party contractors from separate tort liability to prevent double recovery against both insurer and investigator for the same alleged claims mishandling.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly shields engineering firms, independent adjusters, and other third-party professionals hired by insurers in Oklahoma from direct tort liability to policyholders arising out of the claims investigation process. Insureds who believe a retained inspector submitted a biased or inaccurate report must pursue their remedies against the insurer—through breach of contract or bad faith claims—rather than suing the inspector directly. The ruling reinforces that the insurer, not its contractors, bears ultimate legal responsibility for how a claim is evaluated.
The 7-2 split underscores real tension in the law: the dissent’s concern that intentional-tort allegations (bad-faith biased reporting for the inspector’s own commercial gain) may warrant different treatment than negligent investigation. Attorneys representing policyholders in Oklahoma should note that allegations of an inspector’s self-dealing, even if well-pleaded, will not defeat the representative-capacity bar at the motion-to-dismiss stage under this ruling. Defense counsel for insurers and their retained experts now have stronger grounds to seek early dismissal of investigator-directed tort claims.