CJ-2026-00010 - BLW Place and Finish, LLC v. Title Concrete, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: no one expects a high school construction project in Marietta, Oklahoma to spiral into a six-count legal war involving unpaid concrete work, a missing insurance response, and a demand for $75,000 in punitive damages because someone didn’t even bother to reply to a claim. But here we are. A Texas-based contractor is suing an Oklahoma concrete company and its insurance firm for $43,000—less than the cost of a new pickup truck in 2025—and throwing in a bad faith claim like it’s a jalapeño popper at a courthouse potluck. This isn’t just about money. This is about principle. And also, apparently, about making sure someone, somewhere, finally hits “reply” on an email.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got BLW Place and Finish, LLC—a Texas outfit that, as their name suggests, probably does the delicate, sweaty work of placing and finishing concrete. You know, the stuff that makes floors flat and sidewalks safe. They’re not the architects dreaming up the building; they’re the ones making sure the floors don’t slope like a ski jump. Represented by a slick Tulsa law firm with offices in multiple states, they mean business. On the other side: Title Concrete, LLC, an Oklahoma company that apparently hired BLW to help build the new Marietta Public Schools High School—Phase II. (Yes, Phase II. There was already a Phase I. This is not a pilot program.) And then there’s Insurors Indemnity Company—the mysterious “surety,” a fancy word for the insurance company that promised, on paper at least, to cover payments if Title Concrete dropped the ball. Spoiler: they did. And the ball was a $43,000 check.

Now, let’s walk through what went down. BLW says they had a written contract with Title Concrete to do work on this shiny new public school. They showed up, did the work, submitted three invoices—one in late September and another in mid-October of 2025—and then… nothing. No payment. No “we’re reviewing it.” Not even a “we’re broke, sorry.” Just silence. Under Oklahoma’s Fair Pay for Construction Act (yes, that’s a real law, and no, it doesn’t get the respect it deserves), contractors like Title are required to pay subcontractors within 30 days of receiving a proper invoice. They also can’t just slash the amount owed without giving a detailed explanation within 14 days. Title, according to BLW, did neither. They didn’t pay, and they didn’t push back. So by the magic of state law, those invoices are now automatically due in full. No debate. No negotiation. It’s like if your landlord ignored your rent check request and then you invoiced them for emotional damages—except this is actually legal.

So BLW, being reasonable(ish), didn’t immediately lawyer up. They filed a claim against the payment bond—a financial safety net required on public projects to protect subcontractors when the main contractor ghosts them. Think of it like construction’s version of a co-signer. The bond, issued by Insurors Indemnity Company, was supposed to step in if Title failed to pay. BLW filed their claim on December 12, 2025—same day they filed this lawsuit, which feels either very efficient or very dramatic. Either way, the claim was for $43,346.10. Exact change. No rounding. That decimal suggests someone really, really checked their receipts.

But here’s where it gets juicy. Insurors didn’t just fail to pay. They didn’t even acknowledge the claim. No “we’re investigating.” No “please send additional forms.” Not even a “we deny.” According to the filing, they did absolutely nothing. And in the world of construction law, that’s not just rude—it’s potentially punishable. Which is why BLW didn’t just sue for the money. They sued for revenge money. Enter: the bad faith claim.

Now, in regular human terms, here’s what BLW is saying in court: “We did the work. We sent the bills. The concrete company ignored us. We went to the insurance company, like the law says we can. And they acted like we don’t exist. That’s not just unfair—it’s malicious.” So they’re asking the court to make Insurors pay not just the $43,346.10, but an additional $75,000 in punitive damages—money meant to punish the insurer for being so utterly, spectacularly unresponsive. That’s more than double the original debt. It’s like if you returned a rental car with a scratch, the company didn’t respond for six months, and then you sued them for the cost of a new Tesla.

And let’s talk about that $43,000. Is it a lot? In the grand scheme of school construction projects—where budgets run into the millions—it’s a rounding error. But for a small contractor? That’s payroll. That’s equipment payments. That’s the difference between staying open and having to lay people off. BLW isn’t asking for luxury—they’re asking to be paid what they’re owed. And they’re asking six different legal ways, because when you’ve been ghosted this hard, you throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Breach of contract? Check. Violation of the Fair Pay for Construction Act? Double check. Quantum meruit (Latin for “you benefited, so pay up”)? Unjust enrichment (you got richer, I got nothing)? Statutory bond claim? And now, the pièce de résistance: bad faith. It’s the legal equivalent of showing up to a fight with six different knives.

Our take? Look, we’re not here to say who’s right or wrong—this is just the filing, not the full trial. But the most absurd part isn’t the money. It’s the silence. In an age where you can get a text confirmation that your pizza is “on the way,” it’s mind-blowing that a multi-thousand-dollar claim against a bond—a legally binding financial guarantee—could be met with crickets. Either Insurors Indemnity Company is the most incompetent insurer in Oklahoma, or they’re playing a high-stakes game of “if we ignore it, it’ll go away.” Neither looks good in court. And BLW? We’re kind of rooting for them. Not because we love concrete (though we respect the craft), but because this is about accountability. If you hire someone to build part of a public school—a place where kids will learn math and history and maybe even contract law—you don’t get to vanish when the bill comes due. And if you’re the insurance company that promised to cover that risk, you don’t get to pretend the claim doesn’t exist.

This case isn’t about murder. It’s not even about embezzlement. It’s about a $43,000 invoice that should’ve been paid with a click, a check, or at least a “we’ll get back to you.” Instead, it’s now a six-cause-of-action lawsuit in Love County, where the only thing growing faster than the new high school is the legal drama surrounding it. And honestly? We can’t wait to see what the discovery phase brings. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned from petty civil court: the real crime isn’t the unpaid bill. It’s the attitude.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Love County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Timothy L. Rogers

Barrow & Grimm, P.C.

Relief Sought

$43,246 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

BLW Place and Finish, LLC business
Rep: Timothy L. Rogers, J. Remington Huffman of Barrow & Grimm, P.C.

Defendants

Title Concrete, LLC business
Insurors Indemnity Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract	BLW seeks payment for work performed on the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II project
2	violation of the Fair Pay for Construction Act	BLW seeks payment for work performed on the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II project
3	quantum meruit	BLW seeks payment for work performed on the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II project
4	unjust enrichment	BLW seeks payment for work performed on the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II project
5	claim against statutory payment bond	BLW seeks payment for work performed on the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II project
6	bad faith	BLW seeks punitive damages against Insurors for failure to pay bond claim

Petition Text

1,197 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOVE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BLW PLACE AND FINISH, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. TITLE CONCRETE, LLC and INSURORS INDEMNITY COMPANY Defendants. Case No.: CJ-26 - 10 PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, BLW Place and Finish, LLC ("BLW"), and for its causes of action against Defendants, Title Concrete, LLC ("Title") and Insurors Indemnity Company ("Insurors"), states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. BLW is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas and performing work in Oklahoma. 2. On information and belief, Title is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Edmond, Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, Insurors is a foreign insurance / surety company. 4. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 2004(F), and venue is proper herein pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021, § 134,137, 142, and 143. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Pursuant to a written agreement with Title (the "Contract"), BLW performed certain work (the "Work") in connection with the Marietta Public Schools New High School – Phase II located in Marietta, OK (the "Project"). 6. BLW performed the Work under the Contract; however, Title has failed to pay all the money BLW is owed for the Work it performed on the Project. 7. To date, Title owes BLW for the Work it performed on the Project the principal amount of $43,346.10. 8. In accordance with Oklahoma’s Little Miller Act, 61 O.S. Supp. 2020, § 1, et seq., Insurers, as surety, and Title, as principal, executed payment bond no. CNB-39941-00 (the "Bond") (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) in connection with the Project, to ensure the payment of all indebtedness incurred by Title and its subcontractors and suppliers (including BLW) for labor, material and equipment supplied on the Project. 9. On December 12, 2025, BLW timely filed a claim against the Bond in the principal amount of $43,346.10. To date, Insurers has wholly failed to acknowledge the bond claim or respond to it in writing, much less conduct an investigation. 10. BLW has complied with all condition’s precedent, if any, to recover under the Bond. 11. To date, neither Title, nor Insurers have paid BLW’s claim against the Bond. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. For its first cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 11 above. 13. BLW performed all of its obligations under the Contract. 14. By failing to pay BLW for the Work it performed on the Project, Title has breached the Contract. 15. BLW is entitled to judgment against Title for breach of contract in the amount of $43,346.10, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION ACT AGAINST TITLE 16. For its second cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 15 above. 17. Okla. Stat. tit. 61, § 223(A) required Title to make progress payments to BLW for work performed and materials stored within thirty (30) calendar days after a proper invoice is submitted. 18. Okla. Stat. tit. 61, § 223(B) mandated that Title could not reduce BLW’s invoices unless it provided BLW a detailed explanation of any reduction in the invoice within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the invoice. 19. Title violated these statutory mandates by failing to respond in any material way to BLW’s three invoices, two of which were submitted September 30, 2025, and one submitted October 15, 2025, thus by operation of law, Title cannot reduce these invoices, and they are due and owing. 20. Because of the Title’s violation of Oklahoma’s Fair Pay for Construction Act, BLW is entitled to recover the full amount of all three invoices, $43,346.10, together with interest as set forth in Okla. Stat. tit. 61, § 225(E). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION QUANTUM MERUIT 21. For its third cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 20 above. 22. BLW provided Title with valuable services, from which Title benefited. 23. BLW is entitled to reasonable compensation for the Work it performed on the Project. Accordingly, BLW is entitled to judgment against Title in the amount of $43,346.10, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT 24. For its fourth cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 23 above. 25. BLW performed the Work with the reasonable expectation of being adequately and fairly compensated therefor. 26. The Work performed benefited Title and Title accepted the Work furnished by BLW. 27. BLW has not been paid for the Work it performed and Title has been unjustly enriched as a result. BLW is, therefore, entitled to recover from Title the amount of $43,346.10, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION CLAIM AGAINST STATUTORY PAYMENT BOND 28. For its fifth cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 27 above. 29. As a party who furnished labor, material, and equipment on the Project, BLW is a proper claimant under the Bond. 30. Title is the principal under the Bond, and Insurors is the surety thereunder. 31. To date, neither Title nor Insurors, have paid BLW’s claim against the Bond in the amount of $43,346.10. 32. BLW therefore requests that the Court render judgment in its favor and against Title and Insurers, jointly and severally, under the Bond in the principal sum of $43,346.10, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FAITH 33. For its sixth cause of action, BLW adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 – 32 above. 34. Insurers breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing it owed to BLW as a beneficiary under the Bond by failing to acknowledge or respond at all whatsoever to BLW's claim against the Bond, much less conduct any type of investigation. 35. Insurers has recklessly disregarded and/or acted intentionally and with malice in breaching its duty to deal fairly with and in good faith toward BLW by refusing to pay BLW's bond claim. As a result, BLW is entitled to punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00. 36. BLW is entitled to judgment against Insurers on its bad faith claim in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, BLW prays that the Court enter judgment in its favor against Title on its breach of contract claim against Title in the amount of $43,346.10; judgment in its favor against Title on its violation of the fair pay for construction act claim against Title in the amount of $43,346.10, together with interest as set forth in Okla. Stat. tit. 61, § 225(E); judgment against Title on its quantum meruit claim in the amount of $43,346.10; judgment against Title on its unjust enrichment claim in the amount of $43,346.10; judgment against Title and Insurers, jointly and severally, under the Bond in the amount of $43,346.10; judgment against Insurers on its bad faith claim in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, its attorney's fees and costs, accrued and accruing and such additional relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, BARROW & GRIMM, P.C. Timothy L. Rogers, OBA No. 22292 J. Remington Huffman, OBA No. 36674 110 W. 7th St., Ste. 900 Tulsa, OK 74119-1044 (918) 584-1600 (918) 585-2444 (Fax) [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, BLW PLACE AND FINISH, LLC