CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
CANADIAN COUNTY • SC-2026-420

Alexandria Schweitzer v. Save Concrete Works, LLC

Filed: Mar 12, 2026
Type: SC

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: no one expects to get their pickup truck insulated while ordering a milkshake at a drive-thru. But that’s exactly what happened to Alexandria Schweitzer on a perfectly ordinary March day in El Reno, Oklahoma. One minute she’s idling in line at Sid’s Diner, probably debating whether to add onion rings, and the next—bam—her truck is buried under a surprise coating of spray foam insulation, courtesy of a nearby construction job gone rogue. This isn’t a scene from a slapstick comedy. It’s a certified, notarized, small claims court disasterpiece. And now, someone’s gotta pay.

Alexandria Schweitzer is, by all accounts, a regular Oklahoman—lives in Omega (which, yes, is a real town, population: “not many”), drives a pickup (as one does), and, like any sensible person, occasionally craves diner food. On the other side of this foam-fueled fiasco is Save Concrete Works, LLC, a Blanchard-based company with a name that promises strength and stability but apparently delivers accidental vehicular insulation. The two parties had no prior relationship—no grudges, no history, just a tragic intersection of timing, wind, and poor containment practices. The only thing connecting them? A poorly executed spray foam job at Sid’s Diner, a location that, ironically, probably just wanted better energy efficiency, not a full-scale construction comedy of errors.

Here’s how the chaos unfolded. On March 13, 2024—two years before this lawsuit was even filed, which already feels like a long simmer on the back burner—Save Concrete Works was on-site at Sid’s Diner applying spray foam insulation. Now, for the uninitiated, spray foam is that fast-expanding, sticky, industrial-grade goo that seals up buildings like a thermos. It’s great for insulation. It’s terrible for paint jobs. And when it’s not properly contained? It goes full Ghostbusters—everywhere it shouldn’t be. According to the filing, the crew didn’t exactly set up a containment zone. No tarps. No barriers. No “Hey, maybe don’t do this while people are trying to order pie.” So when Alexandria pulled into the drive-thru—minding her own business, probably wearing sunglasses and listening to classic country—she became an unwilling participant in an impromptu truck renovation. The wind did its thing, the foam did its thing, and suddenly, Schweitzer’s pickup looked less like a vehicle and more like a craft project gone wrong. Covered. In. Insulation.

Now, let’s be clear: this wasn’t a light dusting. This was damage. And not the kind you can just hose off. Spray foam cures hard. It bonds to surfaces. You don’t wipe it away—you scrape, sand, or replace entire panels. So when Alexandria (understandably) freaked out and called her insurance, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, they didn’t laugh her off the phone. They processed the claim under her comprehensive coverage—the part of auto insurance that covers “acts of God, stupidity, and rogue contractors,” more or less—and paid out $2,620 to cover the repairs. But here’s the twist: insurance companies hate paying for things they didn’t cause. So once they cut the check, they invoked their sacred right of subrogation—a fancy legal term that means “We paid for this mess, so now we’re coming after the person who actually messed it up.” And thus, Alexandria and her insurer became co-plaintiffs in a $3,120 revenge tour against Save Concrete Works.

So what’s the actual beef in court? Legally speaking, it’s a textbook negligence claim. The filing argues that Save Concrete Works had a duty to perform their job safely, which includes not coating nearby vehicles in industrial foam. They breached that duty by failing to contain the spray, and as a direct result, Schweitzer’s truck got trashed. The damages? $3,120—$2,620 paid by the insurer, plus Alexandria’s $500 deductible, which she’s still out. That’s the number they’re chasing. And while $3,120 might not sound like Fortune 500 money, let’s put it in perspective: that’s enough to buy a lot of pickup truck detailing, a solid used motorcycle, or, ironically, a very nice spray foam insulation system—properly installed, one would hope. For a small business like Save Concrete Works, it’s not bankruptcy-level, but it’s also not nothing. It’s the kind of sum that makes you wonder: Was skipping the tarps really worth it?

Now, here’s where we, the peanut gallery, get to weigh in. Because come on—this case is glorious in its absurdity. It’s not about betrayal, fraud, or even a dramatic accident. It’s about a drive-thru becoming a crime scene. A milkshake run turning into a property damage claim. The idea that someone thought, “Yeah, let’s shoot expanding foam into the open air while cars are pulling through for burgers,” and didn’t foresee any issues? That’s not just negligence. That’s art. And yet, as ridiculous as it sounds, the law kind of has to take this seriously. Because if contractors can just go around accidentally insulating civilians’ vehicles with zero consequences, we’re all at risk. Next time, it could be your F-150. Or worse—your Tesla. Imagine trying to explain that to your insurance adjuster: “Yeah, the paint job’s ruined. No, it wasn’t hail. It was polyurethane.”

We’re not saying Save Concrete Works needs to be blacklisted from the construction industry. But a little accountability? A few lessons in worksite containment? Maybe a mandatory seminar on “Things That Should Not Coat Customer Vehicles”? That feels fair. And honestly, we’re rooting for Alexandria. Not because $3,120 is life-changing money, but because principle. She just wanted a meal. She didn’t sign up to be a human cautionary tale about poor job site management. If anything, she deserves a free pie from Sid’s Diner for enduring this nonsense.

So as we await the April 2026 hearing—yes, we’re still two years out from the courtroom showdown—let this case serve as a warning to all contractors: when you’re spraying foam, secure the perimeter. And to the rest of us? Maybe, just maybe, consider parking a little farther from construction zones. Because in the wild world of civil court, sometimes the most dangerous thing at a diner isn’t the deep fryer. It’s the guy with the insulation gun.

Case Overview

$3,120 Demand Complaint
Jurisdiction
District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$3,120 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Negligence Insulation over-spray damaged plaintiff's pickup

Petition Text

521 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ALEXANDRIA SCHWEITZER, and OKLAHOMA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, vs. SAVE CONCRETE WORKS, LLC, Defendant. SMALL CLAIMS AFFIDAVIT Affiant Steve L. Lawson, being duly sworn, deposes and states on behalf of the plaintiffs Alexandria Schweitzer and Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, for their cause of action against the defendant Save Concrete Works, LLC, submit the following: 1. The plaintiff Alexandria Schweitzer is a resident of Omega, in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. 2. The plaintiff Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is an Oklahoma mutual insurance company doing business in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 3. The defendant Save Concrete Works, LLC is an Oklahoma limited liability company that did business in Canadian County, Oklahoma, and has its principal place of business at 21340 State Highway 76, Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010. 3. On or about March 13, 2024, Save Concrete Works, LLC was performing a spray insulation job on the property of Sid’s Diner located in El Reno, Canadian County, Oklahoma. 4. On March 13, 2024, the plaintiff Alexandria Schweitzer was in her pickup in the drive through lane of Sid’s Diner when the defendant’s negligent actions resulted in insulation over-spray covering Ms. Schweitzer’s pickup, thereby damaging the pickup. 5. On March 13, 2024, the plaintiff Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company had in effect an auto policy which included comprehensive coverage for said damage to Ms. Schweitzer’s pickup, less Ms. Schietzer’s $500.00 deductible. 6. In accordance with the terms of its insurance policy, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company paid $2,620.00 for the damage to Ms. Schweitzer’s pickup. 7. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and venue is proper in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. 8. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages in the amount of $3,120.00. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendant for actual damages in excess of $3,120.00, together with statutory interest thereon, costs and attorney fees incurred herein, and such further relief as the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper. Respectfully submitted by affiant: Steve L. Lawson, OBA # 12369 Lawson & Shelton P.L.L.C. 2501 N. Stiles Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 523-2501 Fax: (405) 523-2324 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS **COURT CLERK'S OFFICE WILL FILL OUT THE BOTTOM PORTION** ORDER The people of the State of Oklahoma, to the within named defendant: You are hereby directed to appear and answer the foregoing claim and to have with you all books, papers, witnesses needed by you to establish your defense to the claim. This matter shall be heard at the Canadian County Courthouse in El Reno, County of Canadian, State of Oklahoma, at the hour of 1:30 o'clock p.m. on the 27 day of April 2026. And you are further notified that in case you do not so appear, judgment will be given against you as follows: For the amount of the claim as it is stated in the affidavit, or for possession of the personal property described in the affidavit. And, in addition, for costs of the action (including attorney fees where provided by law), including cost of service of the order. Dated this 12 day of March 2026
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.