Ms. Loven also said that, in May 2012, she submitted estimates to Chisolm Creek Baptist Church ("CCBC") for property damage to its buildings and that, after various discussions, its insurer, Church Mutual, paid $221,000 more on the claim than it initially had offered.

In July 2015, Ms. Loven submitted an online application with the Oklahoma Insurance Department to become a licensed resident public adjuster. As part of the department's investigation, it interviewed Church Mutual employees.

The department denied Ms. Loven's application and Church Mutual employees testified at an administrative appeal hearing. The hearing examiner denied the application and, thereafter, state prosecutors charged Ms. Loven with felonies of filing a false claim for insurance and conspiracy to commit a felony.

After the charges were dismissed, Ms. Loven sued Church Mutual. She alleged that Church Mutual and its adjuster had intentionally interfered with her attempts to get licensed as a public adjuster in retaliation for her actions that caused them to pay more in hail damage roof claims than it had offered to pay to ECC and CCBC.

Church Mutual moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that it was protected by immunity from Ms. Loven's lawsuit pursuant to 36 O.S. §363.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Church Mutual, and the dispute reached the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Law

Section 363 provides:

A. Any insurer, employee or agent of any insurer who has reason to believe that a person or entity has engaged in or is engaging in an act or practice that violates any statute or administrative rule of this state related to insurance fraud shall immediately notify the Anti-Fraud Unit of the Insurance Department and, in the case of an allegation of claimant fraud, the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Fraud Unit of the Office of the Attorney General.

B. No insurer, employee or agent of an insurer, or any other person acting in the absence of fraud, bad faith, reckless disregard for the truth, or actual malice shall be subject to civil liability for libel, slander or any other relevant tort or subject to criminal prosecution by virtue of filing of reports or furnishing other information either orally or in writing, concerning suspected, anticipated or completed fraudulent insurance acts to the Anti-Fraud Division of the Insurance Department or the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Fraud Unit of the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to subsection A of this section or to any other agency involved in the investigation or prosecution of suspected insurance fraud.

C. No civil or criminal cause of action of any nature shall exist against the person or entity by virtue of filing of reports or furnishing other information, either orally or in writing, concerning suspected, anticipated or completed fraudulent insurance acts to the Anti-Fraud Division of the Insurance Department pursuant to subsection A of this section or to any other agency involved in the investigation or prosecution of suspected insurance fraud. The immunity provided in this subsection shall extend to the act of providing or receiving information or reports to or from:

1. Law enforcement officials, their agents and employees;

2. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, any state department of insurance, any federal or state agency or bureau established to detect and prevent fraudulent insurance activities, as well as any other organization established for the same purpose, their agents, employees or designees; and

3. Any organization or person involved in the prevention and detection of fraudulent insurance activities or that organization or person's employees, agents, or representatives. The immunity provided in this subsection shall not extend to any person, insurer, or agent of an insurer for communications or publications about suspected insurance fraud to any other person or entity.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court's Decision

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed.

In its decision, the court ruled that Section 363 was "plain and unambiguous."

The immunity provisions of Section 363, the court explained, applied to reports made under subsection A or when an insurer furnished information, either orally or in writing, for an investigation or prosecution of suspected insurance fraud.

The court then stated:

If Church Mutual, or any other insurer, furnished information for an investigation or prosecution, as [it] did in this cause, [it was] protected from civil action for libel, slander or any other relevant tort or any criminal action.

The court pointed out that the only exception for such immunity was if the insurer provided such information "fraudulently, in bad faith, in reckless disregard for the truth, or with actual malice."

The court found that Ms. Loven's alleged tort of intentional interference with a prospective economic business advantage required a showing of bad faith/wrongfulness and that the alleged facts could not survive a motion for summary judgment because she had offered no evidence tending to show that Church Mutual had acted with fraud, bad faith, or reckless disregard for the truth, or actual malice.

The court decided that Church Mutual's involvement was in response to the department's investigation, which was in response to Ms. Loven's online application to be a public adjuster. Accordingly, the court concluded, Church Mutual was entitled to immunity and judgment as a matter of law.

The case is Loven v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., No. 116808 (Okla. Oct. 22, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Stanley M. Ward, Barrett T. Bowers, Norman, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Kenyatta R. Bethea, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.