I. An Interlocutory Question After a Hail Claim
On June 30, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided Community Resourcing, Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance, 2026 OK 53. The case arose after a May 5, 2022 hailstorm damaged the property of Community Resourcing, which operates the Our Daily Bread Food and Resource Center. Community had obtained property insurance through Messer-Bowers Company from Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance. After months of communications about the claim, Berkshire hired Haag Engineering Company to conduct additional inspections. The opinion identifies inspections on March 8 and April 12, 2024. Community sued Berkshire for breach of contract and bad faith and sued the insurance agent for alleged misrepresentation. It later amended the petition to add Haag and Chris Hickman, asserting tortious interference with the insurance contract and civil conspiracy. Haag moved to dismiss. The district court denied that motion and certified the order for interlocutory review. The Supreme Court accepted review, reversed the district court, and remanded. The opinion also carries an important notice: it had not been released for publication and remained subject to revision or withdrawal. Any public explanation should preserve that procedural status rather than present the decision as an unchanging final rule.
II. The Court Decided a Legal Viability Question
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the hail damage was covered, whether Berkshire handled the claim in bad faith, or whether an engineer's report accurately described the property. It addressed a narrower legal question: whether the pleaded tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims against the insurer's engineering representative could proceed under Oklahoma law. The opinion described certified-interlocutory review under 12 O.S. 2021, section 952(b)(3), and Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules 1.50 through 1.56. The district court had certified that resolving the motion would affect a substantial part of the merits because a ruling for Haag would terminate every claim against the engineering company. That posture matters when reading the result. A dismissal at this stage can rest on the legal insufficiency of a theory even when the parties strongly disagree about what happened. The Court examined Community's own allegations about Haag's assignment, report, and relationship with Berkshire, then asked whether those allegations fit recognized elements of the asserted torts. The resulting decision is therefore about the legal boundary of claims against a retained investigator. It is not a finding that all inspections are fair, all reports are accurate, or all insurers satisfy their contractual and statutory duties.
III. Tortious Interference Required More Than a Disputed Report
Oklahoma's tortious-interference elements supplied the first part of the Court's analysis. Under Mac Adjustment, Inc. v. Property Loss Research Bureau, 1979 OK 41, a claimant must show a contractual right, interference with that right, interference that was malicious and wrongful rather than justified, privileged, or excusable, and damages proximately caused by the interference. The Supreme Court then applied the representative-capacity rule discussed in Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 1996 OK 13, and Ray v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 1994 OK 100. A person or entity acting for a party to the contract is not treated as a stranger wrongfully interfering with that contract when performing the representative role. Community's pleading alleged that Berkshire engaged Haag to inspect the property under the policy, evaluate whether observed damage resulted from a covered peril, and report the findings to Berkshire. The insurer, not Haag, made the ultimate coverage determination. On those allegations, the Court held that Haag was acting strictly as Berkshire's representative. The contractual assignment also supplied the justification and privilege that the interference claim required the claimant to negate. The holding did not turn on a declaration that the report was correct. It turned on the legal character of the work Haag was hired to perform.
IV. The Insurer's Duties Remained Non-Delegable
The Court's representative-capacity holding did not outsource Berkshire's obligations. The opinion repeatedly emphasized that an insurer's core duties are non-delegable under Oklahoma law. It relied on Trinity Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Services, 2014 OK 106, Timmons v. Royal Globe Insurance Co., 1982 OK 97, and Wathor v. Mutual Assurance Administrators, Inc., 2004 OK 2. Those authorities place the ultimate responsibility for the claim decision on the insurer even when the insurer uses an independent adjuster or other professional. In Trinity Baptist Church, the Court reasoned that the insurer controlled the adjuster's responsibilities and retained the authority to deny coverage or pay the claim. If the investigation was inadequate, the insurer could remain liable; the insured was not left without a potential claim merely because an outside person gathered information. Community Resourcing used that principle to reject a separate tort theory against the retained engineer, not to create a safe harbor for the insurer. That distinction is essential. A policyholder may need to challenge the coverage decision, the claim handling, or the insurer's reasons directly. The engineer's status as a representative can limit a claim against the engineer while leaving the insurer's contractual and good-faith duties fully in the case.
V. Disagreement With an Inspection Is Not Automatically Wrongful Interference
Community alleged that Haag's inspection and reporting favored Berkshire and that financial incentives encouraged the company to minimize or deny legitimate claims. The Supreme Court did not decide whether those allegations were factually true. It held that disagreement with the substantive findings did not, by itself, remove the justification that came from Haag's contractual assignment. The Court cited Council Tower Association v. Axis Specialty Insurance Co., 630 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2011), which treated an investigator's job of examining a loss and reporting to the insurer as a justified function rather than wrongful interference merely because the policyholder disagreed with the report. That reasoning does not make an inspection report self-proving. It identifies the difference between a report's content and the legal purpose for which the investigator was engaged. A report can be disputed, incomplete, or challenged through the claim process without automatically becoming an independent tort against the person who prepared it. The opinion's language should therefore be read narrowly: the alleged conduct, as pleaded, occurred while Haag performed the inspection and reported to Berkshire, and the insurer retained the coverage decision. A different record involving conduct outside the assigned role, a different contractual relationship, or a different claim could present a different legal question.
VI. Civil Conspiracy Did Not Create a Second Route to Liability
The Court separately rejected Community's civil-conspiracy claim. Oklahoma treats civil conspiracy as a combination of two or more persons to perform an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, but conspiracy is not an independent tort that creates liability without an independently unlawful purpose or means. The Court relied on Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127. Because Community's underlying tortious-interference theory against Haag failed as a matter of law, the derivative conspiracy theory failed as well. The opinion also compared the allegations with Trinity Baptist Church, where an alleged agreement between an insurer and an independent adjuster to manipulate estimates was treated as a restatement of the insured's bad-faith claim against the insurer rather than a separate special relationship creating adjuster liability. Haag was a stranger to the insurance contract and owed no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Community. That point does not eliminate the covenant owed by the insurer. It means the legal duty follows the relationship recognized by Oklahoma law. A pleading cannot create a new duty simply by combining the words conspiracy, bias, and claim reduction. The alleged underlying conduct must be independently unlawful, and the defendant must be legally capable of committing the tort asserted against it in the role the record describes.
VII. The Dissent Asked Whether Intentional Conduct Was Different
Justices Gurich and Combs dissented. Their separate writing framed the dispute differently: whether Oklahoma law permits tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims against a third-party engineering firm that submits a report intended to defeat an insured's claim. The dissent questioned whether Voiles and Ray, which did not involve insurance contracts, could resolve the representative question when Community alleged that Haag pursued its own financial interest in addition to Berkshire's interests. The dissent also distinguished the negligence and bad-faith reasoning in Trinity Baptist Church from intentional tort claims. It cited a 2025 federal decision, Hooper v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., for the proposition that prior applications of Trinity had been limited to negligence, bad faith, and breach-of-contract theories in claim evaluation and should not automatically become sweeping immunity for intentional conduct. The dissent would have affirmed the order allowing the claims to proceed. That disagreement is not a second holding, but it is part of the opinion a careful reader must preserve. It identifies a boundary the majority did not accept on this record and warns that labels such as representative and investigator should not obscure allegations of conduct pursued for a separate personal or commercial purpose.
VIII. What the Decision Does Not Establish
Community Resourcing does not decide whether Berkshire breached the policy, acted in bad faith, or ultimately owes a particular amount. It does not find that Haag's inspection was accurate, fair, or complete. It does not hold that every engineer, adjuster, appraiser, or other professional hired by an insurer is protected from every possible claim. Nor does it establish that a policyholder can never plead an intentional tort against a retained professional. The majority resolved the claims presented against Haag by applying representative capacity, privilege, and the non-delegable-duty framework to the allegations and contractual role before it. The Court also did not award a verdict, determine damages, or decide the underlying property-loss facts. Those omissions are not technicalities. They define what the case can responsibly be used to say in another claim. A policyholder evaluating an unresolved dispute should separate at least four questions: what the policy promises, what the insurer decided, what the outside professional was hired to do, and whether the challenged conduct was within that assignment. The answer to one question cannot be assumed from another. A retained investigator may be central to the evidence without being the legal decision-maker. The insurer may remain the party responsible for the coverage and good-faith questions even when the report is a major part of the claim file.
IX. Preserve the Role, Assignment, and Claim Record
The practical lesson is to preserve the record that shows who did what and when. A serious property or injury-related insurance dispute may involve the complete policy and endorsements, the notice of loss, assignment instructions, inspection photographs, measurements, diagrams, drafts and final reports, communications with the adjuster, invoices or engagement terms, claim notes, reservations of rights, coverage letters, payment records, and any appeal or supplemental submission. Preserve original files and metadata where possible, not only screenshots or summaries. Record the source of each document and avoid rewriting disputed language in a way that loses the original context. Those materials may later help counsel determine whether a disagreement concerns the policy, the facts of loss, the scope of an inspection, the reasoning in a report, or the insurer's final decision. Preservation is not a conclusion that a claim will succeed. It is protection against losing the evidence needed to evaluate the legal theories that remain available. Privilege, confidentiality, privacy, and protective-order questions still govern what can be shared. The preservation step should therefore be careful and targeted: identify systems and custodians, protect relevant communications and photographs, and seek legal guidance before sending materials broadly or signing a release that could affect coverage rights.
X. Plead the Defendant's Role With Precision
The opinion also illustrates why pleadings should identify the defendant's role rather than treat every participant in a claim as interchangeable. The insurer is the party that issued the policy and made the coverage decision. The agent may have a different relationship and different alleged representations. The engineering company may have been hired to inspect, measure, photograph, or report. Those roles can overlap in a chronology while carrying different legal duties. A claim against the insurer for breach of contract or bad faith is not the same claim as a tort against an outside professional. If facts support a theory that the professional acted outside the assigned inspection role, pursued a separate unlawful purpose, or made a statement actionable under another legal rule, counsel must identify those facts and the elements that fit them. The record cannot be filled with assumptions about motive or agency. At the same time, a pleading should not hide the actual claim decision behind a report or use a derivative conspiracy label to avoid the elements of the underlying tort. Community Resourcing rewards that precision: the majority treated the assignment and the insurer's retained authority as decisive, while the dissent focused on allegations of a separate financial purpose. The difference shows why role, contract, conduct, and decision-maker should be developed together.
XI. Read the Holding With Its Revision Notice
The most durable statement from Community Resourcing is limited but important. On the allegations and contractual relationship before it, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Haag acted as Berkshire's representative while inspecting the insured's property and reporting its findings, so the tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims against Haag failed as a matter of law. The Court simultaneously reaffirmed that the insurer's claim-handling duties are not delegated merely because outside professionals assist with investigation. The dissent preserved a competing concern about applying representative privilege to intentional-tort allegations at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Because the opinion had not been released for publication and remained subject to revision or withdrawal, lawyers should verify the current official text and later treatment before relying on it. The decision is a tool for mapping a claim file, not a substitute for reading the policy, preserving the inspection record, or analyzing the facts of a particular loss. Hicks Law Firm evaluates serious Oklahoma insurance and injury matters by separating the policy promise, the evidence of the loss, the roles of each participant, and the legal theories that the record can actually support. This article provides general information, not legal advice or a prediction of any case. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
If an insurer's inspection, claim decision, or coverage explanation does not match the available evidence, preserve the policy, photographs, reports, communications, and payment records before they are lost or overwritten. Contact Hicks Law Firm at (405) 759-0515 or through the contact page. Do not send confidential details until an attorney-client relationship has been established. Every insurance dispute depends on its own policy language, evidence, participants, deadlines, and applicable law.