On June 24, 2026, Oklahoma's top court ruled an insurance agent couldn't make the movers help cover the claim she had settled.
The case started with a mobile home and a move that went wrong. A couple hired Brown & Son Mobile Home Service - arranged through their daughter - to relocate their home to a new property. Before it happened, they asked their insurance agent whether they were covered for transport damage or needed a rider. According to the couple, the agent assured them twice that their existing policies were enough.
On April 7, 2019, the original truck broke down, and Brown & Son brought in a subcontracted driver, paying him $750 to finish the job. The driver wanted plywood placed under the wheels so they wouldn't sink into the sandy ground. Crew on site decided it wasn't needed. The wheels sank anyway, and the home was substantially damaged as workers tried to free the undercarriage.
When the couple filed a claim, Foremost Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Exchange denied it, citing policy exclusions for damage during transit. The couple sued both insurers for breach of contract and bad faith, and sued their agent over her alleged misrepresentations about the coverage.
Here is the part that matters for the industry. The agent filed a third-party claim against the movers, arguing that if she ended up liable, they should help pay. After the couple settled and dismissed their case, the movers asked the court to throw out the agent's claim - and the court agreed.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that result, but on its own reasoning. Under the state's contribution statute, 12 O.S. § 832, one party can recover from another only when both are liable "for the same injury to person or property." Here, the court said, the injuries were different. The movers' alleged fault was the physical damage to the home. The agent's alleged fault was the loss of insurance protection.
"The fact that both alleged wrongs relate, in a broad causal sense, to the same underlying event does not transform them into the same injury," the court wrote.
Because the two injuries were not the same, the agent had no right to contribution from the movers, and summary judgment stood.
The takeaway for agents and their errors-and-omissions carriers is sharp. In Oklahoma, an agent on the hook for a coverage mistake cannot push that exposure onto whoever caused the underlying physical loss. A failure to secure or accurately describe coverage is treated as its own, separate injury - not as a shared piece of the same harm.
One caveat for readers: the opinion has not yet been released for publication and remains subject to revision or withdrawal.
