Oklahoma Storage Fee Cap Draws Farm Bureau Support as Repair Shops Challenge It

The dispute over Oklahoma’s limits on vehicle storage charges now has two sharply different accounts of who bears the cost when a damaged car sits at a repair shop. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau has filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the limits. The Oklahoma Auto Body Association (OKABA) and 13 repair shops, which are challenging the measure, argue that the caps could leave businesses carrying the cost of vehicles insurers have not yet moved.

The measure, Senate Bill 641, took effect after being passed in the 2025 session. Its storage limits apply to vehicles declared total losses: $39 per day for gasoline vehicles and $125 per day for electric vehicles with a damaged battery. Beginning on the 11th day, the daily limits rise to $75 and $200, respectively. The bill’s passage and effective date were reported here.

The Farm Bureau’s cost example

The Farm Bureau characterizes the measure as a “rational exercise of legislative discretion.” Its brief says the limits address what it calls unfair and unreasonable charges, which it argues can flow from insurance companies to Oklahoma consumers through higher premiums. That claim puts the focus on the eventual cost of storage, as well as the bill issued to the insurer.

To illustrate its argument, the brief describes a 2017 Ford Explorer that was involved in a collision and declared a total loss. A shop in Cleveland, Oklahoma, charged $250 per day for storage for just over a month, producing a bill of $8,000, according to the brief. The vehicle had been worth about $16,000 before the collision, while the insurer received $4,216 when it was sold at a salvage auction.

The example shows the gap between the vehicle’s pre-collision value, the salvage proceeds and the storage charge in that case. It does not, by itself, establish how often bills reach that level or how frequently a vehicle remains at a shop for a comparable period. For repair businesses, the dispute also turns on what happens while a total loss decision is pending: who controls the timetable, where the vehicle sits and who pays for the space it occupies.

The Farm Bureau argues that the plaintiffs’ disagreement with the measure is not for the court to resolve. “But, respectfully, whether the Act is a good idea is not within the Court’s authority to decide; it is purely a policy decision left to the Legislature,” the brief states. The shops’ challenge, by contrast, contests the limits themselves. OKABA and the businesses allege that the measure is unconstitutional.

Repair shops warn about delays and space

Peyton Bell, owner of Bell Auto Body and a plaintiff in the case, previously described the measure to Repairer Driven News as unconventional and said it violates the free market clause. His concern is that a limit on storage charges could weaken the financial pressure on insurers to collect vehicles declared total losses promptly. He said some vehicles can remain under review for six or seven months.

Those delays can affect several parties at once, Bell said. Customers may be waiting for payment and may lack a vehicle to use or replace. The repair shop has its property occupied during that period, limiting the space available for other work. Storage charges are one way shops say they press insurers to make a decision and arrange to remove a vehicle.

“When you start charging storage, it puts pressure on insurance to make a decision,” Bell said. “That really gets them moving. It may be only a couple days before the consumer is contacted and the car is pulled off your property.” Without that pressure, he said, an insurer could leave a vehicle at a shop indefinitely.

Bell also argues that the same daily limit will have different effects depending on a shop’s location and property costs. Metro-area businesses face higher real estate costs and less available space, he said, and their operating costs could be five, six or seven times those of rural businesses. He warned that the measure could bankrupt more than a handful of shops if it takes effect.

That leaves the dispute centered on how to balance storage charges against the time vehicles remain on repair property. The Farm Bureau’s example emphasizes the size of a bill relative to a total loss vehicle’s value and salvage proceeds. Bell’s account emphasizes the cost of keeping space occupied when a decision is delayed. The court challenge will determine whether the caps stand; for shops, insurers and customers, the practical effect will depend heavily on how quickly total loss vehicles are reviewed and removed.

Other disputes around insurance-related measures

The storage cap is not the only Oklahoma measure involving insurance and repair businesses to face a court challenge. OKABA and repair shops are also challenging a separate measure that bars consumers from assigning benefits to auto body shops. Tedford sponsored both that measure and the storage cap.

Earlier this year, nonprofit news site Oklahoma Watch raised questions about property insurance’s influence on lawmaking. Its report focused on Rep. Mark Tedford and Aaron Reinhardt, who sponsored a separate, unsuccessful bill, SB 726. That proposal would have removed 15% annual interest on court verdicts in favor of insured people who had uninsured motorist coverage. Tedford owns Tedford Insurance and is its CEO; Reinhardt is vice president of risk management at BancFirst Insurance Services.

The storage cap itself had earlier versions: Paxton introduced it in early 2025 after attempting similar proposals, SB1853 and SB1741, in 2024. For the businesses and customers caught in the current dispute, the central question remains how the daily limits will shape the time between a total loss decision and a vehicle leaving the shop.

Image

Photo courtesy of DNY59/iStock