CJ-2026-1301 - The G.W. Van Keppel, Company v. Colony Bay Excavation LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a company is suing another company because it still hasn’t paid for a giant yellow excavator it rented. Not just that — they also didn’t return it. And when the owner finally went to collect, guess what? The tank was on E. This isn’t Home Improvement meets Storage Wars — it’s a real-life courtroom drama where the stakes are $28,000 in unpaid rent, one very tired Volvo excavator, and the fragile state of business trust in Oklahoma.

Meet the players. On one side, we’ve got The G.W. Van Keppel, Company — not some fly-by-night operation, but a legit heavy equipment business based in Missouri with roots stretching into Kansas. They sell, service, and rent out industrial machinery like it’s nobody’s business — because, well, it is their business. Think of them as the Netflix of construction gear: you want a bulldozer for a month? They’ve got it. You need an excavator for a job in Oklahoma City? Done. Just don’t forget to return it with a full tank and your credit card on file. On the other side is Colony Bay Excavation LLC, an Oklahoma-based contractor outfit that apparently thought renting a $200,000 piece of machinery was more like borrowing your cousin’s truck “for a quick job” and then “forgetting” to bring it back. Their office is in south Oklahoma City, and according to this lawsuit, they may have also forgotten how contracts work.

So what went down? It all started — like so many modern tragedies — with a signed rental agreement. Back on April 14, 2025, Colony Bay Excavation LLC rented a shiny Volvo EC230F Excavator (serial number 410182, because yes, even machines have social security numbers now) from Van Keppel. The deal was straightforward: $2,200 per week, or $6,600 per month. Nothing outrageous for a machine that can dig through concrete like it’s warm butter. The contract spelled out the rules in bold, blocky legalese: pay on time, treat the equipment like it’s yours (but remember, it’s not), return it when the job’s done, and for the love of all things diesel, fill it up before you hand it back. Also, if you default? Boom — all remaining payments are due immediately, the owner can repossess the machine (with or without calling the cops), and you pay for everything: towing, storage, legal fees, the whole embarrassing rigmarole.

For a while, things seemed fine. Colony Bay had the excavator. They were using it. Presumably, dirt was being moved. Progress was being made. But then… the invoices started piling up. Van Keppel sent bills. And sent more. And more. According to the filing, Colony Bay owes over $28,000 in unpaid rental fees. That’s not a typo. That’s four months’ worth of rent — or roughly 13 weeks of digging with a $2,200/week machine. Either the job took way longer than expected, or someone at Colony Bay really misunderstood the concept of “rental period.” Either way, the money never came.

And here’s where it gets juicy: when Van Keppel finally realized they were being ghosted, they went to retrieve their excavator. And guess what condition it was in? Empty. Not just empty — bone dry. The contract specifically said Colony Bay had to return it full of fuel or get charged extra. They didn’t. So now, on top of the $28,000 in rent, Van Keppel is out fuel money, towing costs, storage fees, and legal expenses. The total damages claimed? Over $10,000 — which, okay, is less than the $28,000 in unpaid rent, but that’s probably because the lawsuit is just the opening salvo. This number likely reflects what they can immediately prove, not the full tab. (Also, side note: if you owe $28,000 and only get sued for $10,000, you should still be sweating.)

So why are we in court? Because this isn’t just about money — it’s about breach of contract. In plain English: Colony Bay said they’d pay, and they didn’t. They said they’d return the machine, and they didn’t — until Van Keppel had to go fetch it themselves. They agreed to cover repossession costs, and surprise, they’re not paying those either. That’s not a misunderstanding. That’s not “cash flow issues.” That’s a full-blown contractual mutiny. Van Keppel isn’t asking for punitive damages (which would be like the court saying “you were so bad, we’re gonna fine you extra”). They’re not asking for a restraining order against the excavator. They just want what they’re owed — plus legal fees, interest, and whatever else the court thinks is fair. Oh, and they demanded a jury trial, which means someone, somewhere in Oklahoma County might soon have to decide whether a construction company can treat heavy machinery like a Netflix DVD they never mailed back.

Now, let’s talk about that number: $10,000. Is it a lot? In real people terms, yes — that’s a car, a vacation, a year of rent in some parts of the country. But in excavator terms? Chump change. That Volvo EC230F is worth well over $100,000. The fuel alone for a full tank could run $500. And if this machine was sitting idle because Colony Bay couldn’t pay, that’s lost income every single day. So no, $10,000 isn’t the real story. It’s the legal floor — the minimum they can sue for in this court — but everyone knows the true cost is higher. And if the jury sees it that way? Colony Bay might be looking at a much uglier bill.

Our take? Look, business disputes happen. Cash crunches hit. Projects go sideways. But here’s the thing: you don’t rent a piece of equipment the size of a school bus and then act shocked when someone expects payment. You don’t ignore invoices like they’re spam mail. And you especially don’t return a machine with an empty fuel tank like it’s a rental car from Hertz and you’re trying to save $30. The most absurd part? That this even needed to go to court. This isn’t a heist. It’s not Ocean’s Eleven with backhoes. It’s a basic agreement: you use it, you pay for it. Period. If Colony Bay was in over their heads, they should’ve called Van Keppel and negotiated. Maybe worked out a payment plan. Maybe returned the machine early. But radio silence? That’s not a strategy. That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

We’re not rooting for blood. We’re not hoping someone goes to jail over an excavator. But we are rooting for accountability. For the idea that a contract means something. That a signature on a page still carries weight. And that, in 2026, you can’t just borrow a $200,000 machine, run up a $28,000 tab, leave it on fumes, and expect no one will come looking. Spoiler: they came. And now, thanks to a jury trial demand, this whole messy excavation might just get dug up in open court. And honestly? We’ll be watching. Popcorn ready.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Brian J. Rayment

Kivell, Rayment & Francis, P.C.

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

The G.W. Van Keppel, Company business
Rep: Brian J. Rayment, #7441

Defendants

Colony Bay Excavation LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay rental fees and return equipment.

Petition Text

1,082 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE G.W. VAN KEPPEL, CO, Plaintiff, v. COLONY BAY EXCAVATION LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CJ - 2026 - 1301 Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY FEB 19 2026 PETITION RICK WARREN COURT CLERK 42 Plaintiff The G.W. Van Keppel, Company ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, for its Petition against Defendant Colony Bay Excavation, LLC ("Defendant"), alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is to recover damages after Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a rental agreement whereby Plaintiff provided Defendant with equipment for Defendant's use on a rental basis. 3. Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff for the renting of the equipment at the rate specified in the rental agreement. 4. Plaintiff has not received full and final payment from Defendant for the term of Defendant's use of the equipment pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 5. As a result of non-receipt of payment from Defendant, and in retrieval of the rented equipment from Defendant as a result of the non-payment, Plaintiff has been damaged. THE PARTIES 6. Plaintiff The G.W. Van Keppel, Company is a general business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its registered office address at 1103 Prairie Lane, Raymore, Missouri in Cass County. Plaintiff owns and operates a heavy equipment sales and service business from its principal place of business at 1801 N 9th Street in Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 7. Defendant Colony Bay Excavation LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business at 9905 S. Penn Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159. Defendant can be served with process through its registered agent, Jesse Sizemore at 9905 S. Penn Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this matter in that it conducts business in the State of Oklahoma with a location in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and transacted business, entered into a contract and breached the contract within the State of Oklahoma, as more fully described herein. 9. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and controversies described herein. 10. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 134, because Defendant is organized in the State of Oklahoma and have their principal place of business within Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. FACTS 11. Plaintiff operates a heavy equipment sales and service business, organized in Missouri, but operating in multiple states and having its principal place of business at 1801 N 9th Street in Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 12. Defendant operates an industrial lifting equipment contracting company from its principal place of business at 9905 S. Penn Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159. 13. Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to provide one Volvo EC230F Excavator, Serial # 410182 ("Equipment") to Plaintiff in accordance with the signed and executed Equipment Rental Agreement ("Agreement"). 14. The Equipment was rented out at specified rates, $2,200 weekly or $6,600 monthly, beginning on April 14, 2025. 15. Defendant agreed, by term of the agreement, to pay the aforementioned rental rates as well as conditions of return of the Equipment. 16. Defendant agreed, by term of the agreement, that while Defendant was in possession of the Equipment pursuant to the Agreement, the Equipment remained the exclusive personal property of Plaintiff with all equity and rights, less Defendant's terminable right to use the Equipment, remaining with Plaintiff. 17. Defendant further agreed to return the Equipment full of fuel or incur additional charges for the rental. 18. Upon termination of the Agreement or default by Defendant, Defendant agreed to deliver and return the Equipment to Plaintiff at Defendant's expense. 19. Defendant agreed, by term of the Agreement, that failure to remit payment of any monthly charges or perform according to the terms of the Agreement constitutes default of Defendant. 20. The Agreement requires, in the event of default, that the minimum rental shall become immediately due and payable, without any notice to Defendant. 21. In the event of Default, the Agreement permits Plaintiff to take immediate possession of Equipment, with or without force or process of law, and without waiving any rights to any amounts due to Plaintiff. 22. Defendant, by term of the Agreement, agreed to pay all expenses of repossession, transportation, storage and safekeeping of the Equipment. 23. Defendant, by term of the Agreement, further agreed to pay all costs of collection, including attorney fees, required by Plaintiff to recover monies due under the Agreement or to recover the Equipment. 24. Plaintiff sent Defendant a series of invoices for past due rental fees, totaling over $28,000, which have yet to be paid in full. 25. The damages suffered by Plaintiff include not only the accrued rental fees, but also the costs and expenses incurred in recovering the Equipment from Defendant. COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT 26. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 27. Plaintiff and Defendants, parties having capacity to contract, entered into a contract to provide Equipment for an agreed rental rate. 28. The contract contains mutual obligations concerning the rental arrangement between Plaintiff and Defendant. 29. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract whereby Defendant is responsible for full payment of rental fee invoices for the rental period. 30. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract whereby Defendant agreed to remit payment at agreed upon rates at agreed upon intervals for the use and possession of Equipment provided by Plaintiff. 31. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract whereby Defendant agreed to pay all costs associated with the recovery of Equipment in the event of default. 32. Plaintiff agreed and did provide the Equipment contracted for rent and charged the agreed price in rental fees. 33. Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the contract. 34. Defendant failed to perform all of its obligations under the contract. 35. Defendant failed to remit payment for due and owed balances on invoices for the rent and use of Equipment. 36. Defendant failed to return the Equipment to Plaintiff. 37. Defendant failed to pay the costs associated with recovery of the Equipment. 38. Defendant failed to pay the costs associated with returning the Equipment full of fuel. 39. As a result of the breach of multiple aspects of the Agreement, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $10,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in excess of $10,000.00, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, for costs, attorney fees and for such further relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Brian J. Rayment, #7441 Joe B. Francis, #3083 Kivell, Rayment & Francis, P.C. 7666 East 61st Street, Suite 550 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133 Telephone: (918) 294-0047 Facsimile: (918) 254-7915 Email: [email protected] Attorney for G.W. Van Keppel Co.