Oklahoma's top court ruled an insurer's engineering firm can't be sued for how it inspected storm damage on a policyholder's property.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that an engineering firm and one of its employees cannot be held liable for tortious interference or civil conspiracy over an inspection performed for Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance during a property claim dispute.
The dispute began with a May 5, 2022, hailstorm that damaged property owned by Community Resourcing Incorporated, doing business as Our Daily Bread Food and Resource Center, insured through agent Messer-Bowers Company and underwritten by Berkshire Hathaway. After filing a claim, Berkshire Hathaway brought in the engineering firm for an additional inspection, completed on March 8, 2024, and again on April 12, 2024.
Community sued Berkshire Hathaway for breach of contract and bad faith, and sued Messer-Bowers for misrepresentation, in March 2025. Two months later, it amended its petition to add the engineering firm and its employee for tortious interference and civil conspiracy.
According to Community's amended petition, the firm "had an agreement to inspect Plaintiff's Property pursuant to the Policy ... and to opine whether (and what) damage observed was caused by a covered peril (e.g., hail)." Community also claimed the firm, "by contracting or agreeing to inspect Plaintiff's Property and reporting findings that supported Berkshire Hathaway's findings rather than conducting a truthful and fair inspection ... personally gained by financial incentive ... to earn more business and keep the existing relationship with Berkshire Hathaway."
The firm moved to dismiss the claims, arguing it owed Community no duty and had acted solely under its contract with the insurer. The trial court denied the motion but certified the question for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed and sided with the firm, holding that a party acting on behalf of one side of a contract cannot be sued for interfering with that contract. The firm acted purely as Berkshire Hathaway's representative during the inspection, and since the insurer - not the firm - ultimately decided whether to pay the claim, the interference claim had no legal foundation, even taking Community's allegations at face value.
The court cited precedent holding that an insurer's core duties cannot be delegated, and that independent adjusters owe the insured no separate duty to investigate fairly. The justices applied that reasoning here, even though the firm wasn't a traditional "adjuster" and Community framed its claim as an intentional tort rather than negligence. With the interference claim gone, the conspiracy claim failed too.
Two justices dissented, arguing the majority framed the issue narrowly. The dissent cited a recent federal ruling that declined to extend similar protections to intentional torts, warning it would hand third-party professionals a "sweeping grant of immunity" Oklahoma courts haven't embraced, and would have let Community's claims against the firm proceed.
The ruling settles only the claims against the engineering firm and its employee. It does not resolve Community's separate claims against Berkshire Hathaway for breach of contract and bad faith, or against Messer-Bowers for misrepresentation, which return to the trial court.
For insurers and the inspection firms they retain, the ruling suggests that acting as the insurer's representative during a claim evaluation can shield a third-party inspector from being sued by a policyholder. But with two justices dissenting, and a federal court reaching the opposite conclusion on intentional torts, the question may resurface.
