CJ-2026-165 - Miller Excavation, Inc. v. Hive Service Group LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: when you hear “$1.6 million in unpaid invoices,” you don’t immediately think drama. You think spreadsheets. Late fees. Maybe a sternly worded email. But in Canadian County, Oklahoma, one excavation company didn’t just get stiffed — they claim they were gaslit, strung along with lies, and left holding a financial bomb while the general contractor allegedly played fast and loose with client payments. This isn’t just a billing dispute. This is a full-blown contractor betrayal saga, complete with secret factoring deals, whispered promises, and a paper trail that reads like a courtroom thriller.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Miller Excavation, Inc., a Canadian County-based company that specializes in horizontal directional drilling — which, for the non-engineers in the room, means they bore tunnels underground without tearing up the surface. Fancy, precise, and absolutely essential for laying pipelines without turning neighborhoods into construction war zones. On the other side: Hive Service Group LLC, a general contractor that builds oil and gas pipelines and, allegedly, very convincing stories about why the check hasn’t cleared yet. And then there are the humans behind Hive — Dustin Myrick, Dakota Adair, and Derek Crawford — listed in the lawsuit as current or former owners or managers. These are the guys who, according to Miller, looked them in the eye and said, “We haven’t been paid either,” while allegedly cashing checks from project owners and using that money for… well, something other than paying their subcontractors.

Here’s how the whole mess unfolded. Back in March 2022, Miller and Hive signed a Master Service Agreement — basically a “we’ll work together” handshake in legal form. The deal was simple: Miller would do the drilling work on various pipeline jobs, and Hive would pay them within seven days of getting paid by the project owner. That’s not an unreasonable ask — it’s standard in the industry. You finish your part, the client pays the general contractor, and the general contractor cuts checks to the people who actually did the work. It’s called the supply chain. It’s supposed to function.

But in 2023, the checks stopped coming. Miller sent invoices. Followed up. Polite at first. Then increasingly concerned. And every time they asked, Myrick, Adair, and Crawford gave them the same line: “We haven’t gotten paid by the owners yet. As soon as we do, you’ll get yours.” So Miller kept working. They kept drilling. They kept trusting. After all, if the general contractor says the money hasn’t come in, what else can you do? You can’t exactly stop mid-bore and leave a half-finished tunnel under a highway.

Then, in March 2024, the truth finally came out — not in a dramatic courtroom reveal, but in a quiet meeting between reps from Miller and Myrick and Crawford. That’s when they dropped the bomb: the owners had paid Hive. The money had come in. The reason Miller wasn’t getting paid wasn’t because Hive was broke — it was because they’d entered into a factoring arrangement with a bank. For the uninitiated, factoring is when a company sells its accounts receivable (i.e., unpaid invoices) to a third party at a discount for quick cash. It’s not illegal. But it is a red flag. And more importantly, it means Hive had access to money — or at least the promise of it — while telling Miller they were just waiting on checks that had already cleared.

At that moment, Miller realized they’d been played. They’d kept working for months, racking up over $1.6 million in unpaid bills, all because they believed the story that Hive was in the same boat. But no. Hive was sailing. Miller was stranded.

So why are they in court? Let’s break it down, because Miller didn’t just file one claim — they came with a legal artillery strike. First up: Breach of Contract. Simple enough — you agreed to pay us when you got paid. You got paid. You didn’t pay us. That’s a breach. Then comes the Oklahoma Trust Fund Statutes claim — and this one’s spicy. In Oklahoma, when a general contractor receives money for a project, that money is supposed to be held in trust for subcontractors and suppliers. It’s not free cash to spend on office parties or new trucks. It’s earmarked. And Miller is alleging that Hive took that trust money and used it for other things — which, if proven, isn’t just a breach of contract, it’s a violation of state law. And not just Hive — the individuals running the show could be personally on the hook.

Then there’s Fraud and Deceit — the real blockbuster claim. Miller isn’t just saying they weren’t paid. They’re saying they were lied to. Over and over. With intent. That Hive’s owners knowingly told them the owners hadn’t paid, when they had, just to keep Miller working. That’s not bad business — that’s fraud. And if the court agrees, it opens the door to punitive damages — not just to compensate Miller, but to punish Hive for playing dirty.

There’s also a request for an Accounting — basically, Miller wants the court to force Hive to open their books and show exactly where all that project money went. Because right now, they don’t know if it was spent, lost, or funneled into some other venture. And finally, Unjust Enrichment — a fancy way of saying: “You got the benefit of our work, you kept the money, and now you’re acting like we don’t deserve a dime. That’s not fair.”

And what do they want? $1,621,540.00 — down to the dollar. Plus interest. Plus attorney’s fees. Plus, if the fraud claim sticks, punitive damages. Is $1.6 million a lot for a drilling job? Well, let’s look at the breakdown: nearly $300k for work on a Targa pipeline, over $797k from Continental projects, $446k from OneOK. These weren’t backyard jobs. These were major infrastructure projects. And Miller’s work was specialized, time-intensive, and critical. So yes, $1.6 million is a lot of money — but in the world of oil and gas pipeline construction, it’s not out of line for months of high-stakes drilling across multiple sites. The real question isn’t whether the amount is reasonable — it’s whether Hive had the money and chose not to pay.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the unpaid bills. It’s the audacity of the lie. For months, Miller Excavation kept showing up, doing the work, trusting their partner, while Hive allegedly looked them in the eye and said, “We’re waiting on payment too.” That’s not just bad business — that’s a betrayal of the entire subcontractor ecosystem. These small and mid-sized contractors rely on trust. They don’t have the cash reserves of big firms. When a general contractor plays games with payments, it doesn’t just hurt one company — it risks collapsing an entire network of small businesses.

We’re rooting for transparency. For accountability. For the little guy who showed up with the drills and the expertise and got ghosted with a corporate shrug. And if punitive damages are on the table? Good. Sometimes, in the wild west of construction contracts, someone needs to learn that you don’t get to profit off other people’s labor and then pretend the money vanished. Especially not when the receipts tell a different story.

This isn’t just about $1.6 million. It’s about who you can trust when the ground is shifting — literally and figuratively.

Case Overview

$1,621,540 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Clayton D. Ketter

PHILLIPS MURRAH P.C.

Relief Sought

$1,621,540 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Miller Excavation, Inc. business
Rep: Clayton D. Ketter, OBA No. 30611

Defendants

Hive Service Group LLC business
Dustin Myrick individual
Dakota Adair individual
Derek Crawford individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hive failed to timely pay Plaintiff for services performed under the MSA.
2	Violation of Oklahoma's Trust Fund Statutes	Plaintiff alleges that Defendants received payments from project owners for labor, materials, supervision, equipment and other services performed by Plaintiff, but failed to transfer that money to Plaintiff.
3	Fraud and Deceit	Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false representations to Plaintiff about the status of payments, which induced Plaintiff to continue performing work for Hive.
4	Accounting	Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to produce an accounting of any and all funds paid to Hive related to work performed by Plaintiff at the request of Hive.
5	Unjust Enrichment	Plaintiff alleges that Hive accepted and received benefits from Plaintiff, which it would be contrary to equity and good conscience for Hive to retain.

Petition Text

1,840 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MILLER EXCAVATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. HIVE SERVICE GROUP LLC: DUSTIN MYRICK; DAKOTA ADAIR; and DEREK CRAWFORD. Defendants. PETITION Plaintiff Miller Excavation, Inc. ("Plaintiff") for its Petition alleges and state as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Hive Service Group LLC ("Hive") is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Dustin Myrick ("Myrick") is an individual who, upon information and belief, currently resides in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 4. Defendant Dakota Adair ("Adair") is an individual who, upon information and belief, currently resides in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. 5. Defendant Derek Crawford ("Crawford") is an individual who, upon information and belief, currently resides in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 6. All Defendants listed in the caption are collectively referred to herein as the "Defendants." 7. Jurisdiction over the parties and venue in this Court is proper. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Plaintiff is a contractor specializing in horizontal directional drilling. 9. Hive is a general contractor specializing in oil and gas pipeline construction. 10. Myrick, Adair, and Crawford are current and/or former owners or managers of Hive. 11. On or about March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Hive entered into that certain Subcontractor/Vendor/Contractor Master Service Agreement (the “MSA”). 12. Pursuant to the terms of the MSA, Plaintiff was to perform certain subcontractor services for Hive on construction jobs where Hive served as general contractor. 13. The MSA further provides that Hive was required to pay Plaintiff’s invoices within 7 days of receiving payment from the owner of a project. 14. Pursuant to the MSA, Plaintiff performed certain services for Hive on various construction projects. 15. In 2023, after Hive failed to pay certain invoices submitted by Plaintiff for work performed, Plaintiff inquired why invoices were not being paid. Throughout the summer and fall of 2023, Myrick, Adair, and Crawford represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s invoices were not being paid because Hive had not yet been paid by the owners of the projects. 16. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff continued to perform services for Hive under the MSA. 17. In January 2024, Myrick represented to Plaintiff that Hive was still owed money from the owner of various projects and that once the owner paid Hive, Hive would pay Plaintiff. 18. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff continued to perform services for Hive under the MSA. 19. In March 2024, after Plaintiff’s invoices still had not been paid, representatives of Plaintiff met with Myrick and Crawford. At that meeting, Myrick and Crawford revealed that the failure to pay Plaintiff was not due to project owners failing to pay, but was instead due to a factoring arrangement Hive had entered into with a bank, which arrangement was causing liquidity problems for Hive. 20. Prior to learning of this information, Plaintiff did not know and had no way of knowing that Hive had received payment from project owners and failed to use those funds to satisfy the outstanding invoices owed to Plaintiff. 21. There is presently outstanding $1,621,540.00 in invoices for services performed by Plaintiff for Hive. 22. A summary of the outstanding invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. FIRST CLAIM (BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST HIVE) 23. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in the above and below paragraphs. 24. Plaintiff and Hive are parties to the MSA. 25. Plaintiff properly performed services at the request of Hive pursuant to the MSA. 26. Hive failed to timely pay Plaintiff for such services. 27. Hive’s failure to timely pay invoices constitutes a breach of the MSA. 28. Plaintiff has incurred damages caused by Hive’s breach of the MSA in an amount not less than $1,621,540.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that it have judgment against Defendant Hive in an amount of at least $1,621,540.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, until paid, the costs of this action, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and such further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. SECOND CLAIM (VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA'S TRUST FUND STATUTES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 29. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in the above and below paragraphs. 30. The Defendants received payments from project owners for labor, materials, supervision, equipment and other services performed by Plaintiff. 31. The Defendants failed to transfer that money to Plaintiff for the payment of outstanding amounts owed to Plaintiff for work done on the projects. 32. Myrick, Crawford, and Adair are natural persons having the legally enforceable duty for the management of Hive and failed to cause payments made on the project to satisfy the claims of Plaintiff. 33. As a result of the misapplication of payments by the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not less than $1,621,540.00. 34. The misapplication of payments by the Defendants was reckless, malicious, wrongful, and/or intentional and such actions were neither justified, privileged, nor excusable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in an amount of at least $1,621,540.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, until paid, the costs of this action, a reasonable attorney's fee, and such further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Plaintiff further prays for exemplary and punitive damages. THIRD CLAIM (FRAUD AND DECEIT, ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 35. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in the above and below paragraphs. 36. The Defendants represented to Plaintiff that outstanding invoices of Plaintiff had not been paid because Hive had not received payment from project owners. 37. These representations made by the Defendants, however, were in fact false, as, upon information and belief, Hive had already been paid by project owners and used those funds for improper purposes other than the payment of Plaintiff's outstanding invoices. 38. When the Defendants made these representations, they either knew them to be false or made them recklessly as a positive assertion and/or violated a duty to disclose. 39. The Defendants intended Plaintiff to rely upon these representations and nondisclosures to induce Plaintiff to continue to perform work for Hive. 40. Plaintiff did rely upon these representations and nondisclosures to its detriment by continuing to perform work for Hive. 41. The actions of the Defendants constitute fraud, deceit, and/or constructive fraud, which have damaged Plaintiff. 42. The acts of the Defendants were willful and wanton, for which Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages. 43. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not less than $1,621,540.00 due to the fraud and deceit of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in an amount of at least $1,621,540.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, until paid, the costs of this action, a reasonable attorney's fee, and such further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Plaintiff further prays for exemplary and punitive damages. FOURTH CLAIM (ACCOUNTING AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 44. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in the above and below paragraphs. 45. Owners of projects on which Plaintiff performed services at the request of Hive deposited funds with the Defendants. which funds have not been paid over to Plaintiff or fully accounted for. 46. Due to the exclusive access of the Defendants to and control over the information concerning the payments from owners on the projects on which Plaintiff performed services. Plaintiff is in need of a full accounting by the Defendants in order to accurately determine the location of such deposited funds, the application of funds, the application of all monies paid by owners to Hive for labor and materials performed by plaintiff, and the full extent of Plaintiff's damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court order the Defendants produce an accounting as to any and all funds paid to Hive related to work performed by Plaintiff at the request of Hive. FIFTH CLAIM (UJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST HIVE) 47. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation of fact or claim set forth in the above and below paragraphs. 48. Hive accepted and received benefits from Plaintiff. 49. It is contrary to equity and good conscience for Hive to retain the benefits. 50. Such benefits unjustly enriched Hive to the detriment of Plaintiff. 51. Plaintiff is entitled to relief and compensation for Hive’s unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in its favor and against Hive in an amount of at least $1,621,540.00, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, until paid, the costs of this action, a reasonable attorney's fee, and such further relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Clayton D. Ketter, OBA No. 30611 PHILLIPS MURRAH P.C. 424 NW 10th St., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: (405) 235-4100 Facsimile: (405) 235-4133 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MILLER EXCAVATION, INC. <table> <tr> <th>Owner</th> <th>Job Name</th> <th>Invoice Date</th> <th>Num</th> <th>Sum of Amount</th> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="7">Continental</td> <td>23.03-CLR - Black Bear Park Place</td> <td>4/4/2023</td> <td>2025OK</td> <td>$333,600.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.16-CLR-PH1 Courbet Canal 16"</td> <td>11/9/2023</td> <td>2161OK</td> <td>$75,360.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.17-CLR-PH2 Courbet Chisholm 16"</td> <td>11/17/2023</td> <td>2162OK</td> <td>$277,200.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.19-Continental - Canal 2&3 12"</td> <td>12/29/2023</td> <td>2188OK</td> <td>$9,480.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>1/2/2024</td> <td>2189OK</td> <td>$37,800.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>1/26/2024</td> <td>2201OK</td> <td>$48,600.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.20-CLR- Courbet Chisholm 16"</td> <td>12/28/2023</td> <td>2184OK</td> <td>$15,920.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">Continental Total</td> <td>$797,960.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="6">Iron Horse</td> <td>23.08-IronHorse-Eddie Sutton 8"</td> <td>7/12/2023</td> <td>2075OK</td> <td>$5,240.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.13-IronHorse-Broken Bow</td> <td>8/25/2023</td> <td>2103OK</td> <td>$9,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>8/31/2023</td> <td>2112OK</td> <td>$2,680.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.18-IronHorse-Vinta Pipeline</td> <td>12/8/2023</td> <td>2173OK</td> <td>$28,680.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>12/14/2023</td> <td>2174OK</td> <td>$3,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24.23-IronHorse-Crusader LP East 16"</td> <td>2/6/2024</td> <td>2207OK</td> <td>$5,840.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td></td> <td>3/20/2024</td> <td>2231OK</td> <td>$28,800.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">Iron Horse Total</td> <td>$83,240.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="7">OneOK</td> <td>23.07 - ONEOK - Jacob to Goldfinger 16"</td> <td>5/24/2023</td> <td>2054OK</td> <td>$22,800.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.11-ONEOK-Daughters Davis 16"</td> <td>8/23/2023</td> <td>2100OK</td> <td>$82,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24.21-ONEOK - Glass East & West 12"</td> <td>2/26/2024</td> <td>2214OK</td> <td>$113,940.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.05-ONEOK - HWY 29 Bores</td> <td>5/24/2023</td> <td>2055OK</td> <td>$68,640.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.09-ONEOK-Plainview 1&2 8"</td> <td>7/14/2023</td> <td>2076OK</td> <td>$26,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.10 - ONEOK-Harris 3-2-11LMH</td> <td>7/29/2023</td> <td>2086OK</td> <td>$27,960.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>23.15 - ONEOK - LINE 30 12"</td> <td>10/19/2023</td> <td>2147OK</td> <td>$102,120.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24.22-ONEOK-Wertz Trust 8"</td> <td>3/11/2024</td> <td>2228OK</td> <td>$2,880.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">OneOK Total</td> <td>$446,340.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Targa</td> <td>25.29-Targa-TIVIS SW Inlet - 16"</td> <td>10/15/2025</td> <td>2609OK</td> <td>$294,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">Targa Total</td> <td>$294,000.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4">Grand Total</td> <td>$1,621,540.00</td> </tr> </table> EXHIBIT 1