Oklahoma Does Not Allow Plaintiffs To Recover For Unnecessary Losses Which Could Have Been Avoided

Unnecessary damages which could have been avoided by the insured cannot be recovered in a lawsuit for breach of contract as every Oklahoma insurance lawyer well knows.  A party who asserts a claim for breach of contract against an insurance company has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate his damagesHidalgo Properties, Inc. v. Wachovia Mortgage Company, 617 F.2d 196, (10th Cir. 1980)  A party, including a policyholder, has a duty under Oklahoma law, to make all reasonable efforts to minimize his damages.  Sabine Corp. v. ONG Western, Inc., 725 F.Supp. 1157, (Okla. W.D. 1989).

The principle of mitigation of damages is summarized in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 350 comments (1979) as follows:

As a general rule, a party cannot recover damages for loss that he could have avoided by reasonable efforts. Once a party has reason to know that performance by the other party will not be forthcoming, he is ordinarily expected to stop his own performance to avoid further expenditure. . . . Furthermore, he is expected to take such affirmative steps as are appropriate in the circumstances to avoid loss by making substitute arrangements or otherwise. 

A promisee is not required to go to extraordinary lengths or expense to avoid loss; only efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances are necessary.

Any Oklahoma insurance law attorney defending a case brought against an insurance company for breach of contract, fraud, bad faith, or any other cause of action will always look to see if the losses could have been reasonably avoided to prevent the insurance company from being forced to pay more than the law requires.  The lawyer representing the insured will attempt to show reasonable efforts were used or it was impossible to lessen the damage.

My favorite example is the hail storm that knocks a hole in the roof.  The insured needs to do something to stop the water from raining inside and soaking the furniture, i.e., mitigate or lessen the damage by tarping the hole in the roof.  He can't just sit back and watch the water run down the walls!

Oklahoma Insurance Law Attorneys Know Special Damages Must Be Forseeable

Oklahoma attorneys defending lawsuits brought by policyholders against insurance companies regularly use the defense of forseeability to limit special damages which are claimed in the lawsuit.  Special damages for failure to pay under an insurance policy must be the kind of damages that would ordinarily result from breach of contract.  The concept comes under the rule of law in Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854) which limits damages for breach of contract to losses that were forseeable at the time of contracting.  Oklahoma courts limit damages which are not forseeable.  Coker v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 1978 OK 85, 580 P.2d 151, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Ridley, 1962 OK 277, 383 P.2d 227.

The term "forseeable" is best understood as the consequences one would expect from a certain action.  As an example, a mistake in accidentally denying a $500.00 property damage claim from a fender bender would not forseeably end up with the insured filing for bankruptcy.  On the other hand, refusing to promptly pay a valid business interruption claim could "forseeably" result in a business having to close its doors and shut down.  Experienced attorneys defending litigation in which the insured wants to be paid for things not directly related to the insurance policy will challenge whether the insurer could have anticipated the events.