Oklahoma Supreme Court summarily affirms jury verdict in Coriel Roofing v. Burgess Farms; vacates Court of Civil Appeals opinion

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma on Nov. 3, 2025, summarily affirmed the trial court's judgment in Coriel Roofing and Construction Inc. v. Burgess Farms LLC (case number 121275), vacating the Court of Civil Appeals' decision and holding that the omission of a negligence instruction did not, under the record, require reversal.

The court announced the disposition orally and cited Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.201 as the procedural basis for summary disposition. "Until released, it is subject to revision or withdrawal," the court noted about the opinion. The majority concluded that the court's recent decision in Watson v. BNSF Railway Company (2024 OK 74) disposes of the issues presented and reiterated the appellate standard that a jury verdict may not be disturbed absent a demonstration that the jury was misled to the extent of producing a different verdict.

The trial record showed that Burgess Farms alleged both breach of contract and a related negligence counterclaim arising from roof repairs after a weather casualty. According to the reading of the record, the contract price was roughly $604,000, with Coriel Roofing receiving an initial payment of $352,500; Coriel admitted a roughly $10,000 gutter correction remained, but otherwise asserted a mechanics' lien and sought the contractual balance. The jury returned a verdict favoring Coriel on the counterclaim, and the Court found Burgess failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that Coriel breached the contract or that Burgess suffered damages traceable to an independent tort duty.

The majority applied the established test for reversible error when a requested jury instruction is refused: the refusal is reversible only if the record demonstrates a probability the jury was so misled that a different verdict would have resulted. Relying on Watson, the court concluded the omission of the negligence instruction did not meet that standard on these facts and therefore was not reversible error. "An appellate court must not disturb a jury verdict unless the record demonstrates the probability that the jury was so misled by the alleged errors to cause a different verdict," the court stated in the oral reading.

A concurring opinion agreed with the ultimate disposition (vacating the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and affirming the trial court), but expressly disagreed with the majority's extension of Watson to the present circumstances. The concurrence argued the present case "presents a materially different factual and legal scenario than was presented in Watson" and emphasized precedent that it is "always fundamental error to refuse to instruct the jury on a litigant's theory of the case." The concurrence warned that applying Watson here effectively overrules prior authorities such as Bradley Chevrolet and related precedent and said summary disposition was an improper vehicle to effect such a change in the law.

The court's order was announced in conference; the Court noted the opinion had not yet been released for publication and could be revised. No further action in this transcript was recorded.

Sources: oral opinion reading, Coriel Roofing and Construction Inc. v. Burgess Farms LLC (case materials cited in transcript).