Justices rule attorney general improperly expanded a private hail-damage dispute, but Drummond says he will file a separate lawsuit against the insurer.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday removed Attorney General Gentner Drummond from a lawsuit against State Farm, ruling that his office improperly expanded a private homeowner insurance dispute into a broader statewide enforcement action.
In a unanimous order, the court issued a writ prohibiting enforcement of a December 2025 district court order that allowed Drummond to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Oklahoma County homeowners Billy and Lacy Hursh against State Farm. The Hurshes alleged breach of contract, bad faith, constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation stemming from a dispute over hail-damage insurance coverage.
Drummond had sought to join the case on behalf of the state and pursue additional claims under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Oklahoma’s Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other legal theories. His office has accused State Farm of systematically underpaying hail-damage claims and sought statewide remedies, including injunctive relief and damages.
The dispute comes amid growing scrutiny of Oklahoma’s homeowners insurance market, where frequent severe hailstorms have contributed to rising claim costs and higher premiums. Oklahoma consistently ranks among the nation’s most hail-prone states, and homeowners insurance affordability has become a recurring concern for consumers and policymakers alike.
State Farm challenged the intervention, arguing the attorney general’s claims transformed a private insurance dispute into a much broader statewide case.
The Supreme Court agreed, finding that Oklahoma law does not permit an intervenor to enlarge the scope of existing litigation.
The court said the underlying lawsuit centered on a specific insurance claim involving a single property, while the attorney general’s proposed claims sought statewide remedies and introduced legal issues far beyond those raised by the original plaintiffs. Allowing the intervention, the justices concluded, would fundamentally alter the nature of the case.
Importantly, the court did not address the merits of Drummond’s allegations against State Farm. Instead, the ruling focused on the procedural question of whether those claims could be pursued within the existing lawsuit.
The justices also pointed to a separate lawsuit as the appropriate avenue for the attorney general to pursue broader claims against the insurer.
Drummond indicated he intends to do exactly that.
“I thank the Oklahoma Supreme Court for bringing clarity to the appropriate forum where the case needs to be filed,” Drummond said in a statement released Tuesday. “We will be filing a new lawsuit in the morning to hold State Farm accountable for the massive fraud perpetrated on Oklahomans.”
State Farm successfully argued that any statewide allegations should be litigated separately rather than through intervention in the Hursh case. The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively adopts that approach, leaving the door open for a new state-led lawsuit while ending Drummond’s participation in the existing case.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Richard Winchester agreed with the outcome and argued that the attorney general lacked a statutory basis to intervene in the private dispute.
While Tuesday’s ruling represents a procedural setback for Drummond, it does not prevent his office from pursuing its allegations against State Farm in a separate action. Drummond said that lawsuit is expected to be filed Wednesday.
