CJ-2026-1002 - Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc. v. Layson Commercial, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: nobody expects a homeless encampment to spark a half-million-dollar lawsuit. But in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that’s exactly what happened when a landlord allegedly ignored a growing crisis between two commercial buildings—only for it to literally go up in flames. And now, an insurance company from Pennsylvania is suing a local property owner for $581,190.93—because, as it turns out, letting people live in squalor behind your rental property might not be the best risk management strategy.

So who are we even talking about here? On one side, we’ve got Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company—yes, that’s a real name, and no, they don’t cut down trees or sell mulch. They’re an insurance firm based in Philly with a very specific mission: pay claims, then go after whoever they think caused the damage. In this case, they’re acting as “subrogee,” which is legalese for “we paid someone else’s bill, so now we get to sue the person we blame.” The person they paid? Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC—also known as Crossroads Building Supply—a tenant leasing space at 6507 E. 44th Street in Tulsa. And on the other side of this legal fireworks show: Layson Commercial, LLC, the proud owner of that building and its neighbor next door at 6511 E. 44th Street. So picture this: two commercial buildings side by side, one rented out, one owned outright, and between them… a growing homeless encampment that nobody seemed in any hurry to deal with.

Now, let’s walk through how things went from “mild urban blight” to “insurance war.” On December 16, 2024—yes, we’re still in 2024 as of this filing, but roll with it—the City of Tulsa did what cities sometimes do: they sent a violation notice. Specifically, they told Layson Commercial to clean up the homeless encampment squatting in the space between their two properties. This wasn’t just a passive “hey, maybe think about it” kind of warning. It was an official property maintenance violation, the kind that says, “You are legally responsible for this mess.” The next day, a company called Bio-One of Tulsa—yes, they specialize in trauma and biohazard cleanup, so this was right in their wheelhouse—sent Layson a formal proposal to clear the encampment. They offered dates: December 19 or 20. Easy. Simple. Professional help, ready to go. But here’s the kicker: Layson allegedly declined. No reason given. Just a polite “no thanks, we’ll handle it later.” Except “later” never came. On December 21—literally the next day after the cleanup window closed—a fire broke out. Not near the encampment. Not suspiciously close. The investigation concluded it was caused by the encampment. That fire damaged Deroche’s property, which was insured by Pennsylvania Lumbermens. And so, the dominoes fell: the insurer paid out $571,190.93 to cover the damage, plus the tenant’s $10,000 deductible. Total: $581,190.93. And since insurance companies don’t like being on the hook for disasters they didn’t cause, they turned around and sued the landlord, saying, “You had control. You got a warning. You said no to help. You’re paying.”

Which brings us to why they’re in court. The lawsuit makes two big claims: negligence and breach of contract. Let’s unpack that like a very angry gift basket. First, negligence. In plain English: “You had a duty to keep the property safe, you blew it, and now you owe us money.” The filing argues that Layson had a “non-delegable duty” to maintain the property—which sounds fancy, but really just means “you can’t outsource your basic responsibility to not let things become fire hazards.” They list several ways Layson allegedly messed up: failing to remove the encampment in time, failing to prevent it from forming in the first place, creating a dangerous condition (hello, human campfire risk), and not taking basic precautions. In other words, they saw a problem, knew it was risky, and chose to do nothing. Classic negligence 101.

Then there’s the second claim: breach of contract. This one’s juicier. The idea here is that when Layson signed the lease with Deroche, there was an implied promise—not necessarily written, but understood—that the landlord would keep the property in a condition that wouldn’t randomly catch fire. You don’t rent out a building expecting it to burn down because the landlord let a tent city fester in the alley. The suit argues that by failing to maintain the premises and allowing a known hazard to persist, Layson broke that agreement. And since Deroche lost a lot of money (and inventory, and business stability), the landlord should foot the bill.

Now, about that $581,190.93. Is that a lot? Oh, honey, yes. We’re not talking about a busted water heater or a flooded bathroom. This is nearly six hundred grand. For context, that’s enough to buy a luxury home in most parts of Oklahoma, or fund a small business for five years, or host a very extravagant wedding with fireworks and a live moose. And while we don’t know exactly what burned—was it lumber? Tools? Inventory?—we do know it was enough to trigger a massive insurance payout. The fact that the insurer is demanding exactly the amount they paid (plus interest and fees) tells you they’re not trying to profit—they’re trying to recover. But still. Six figures over a fire that started in a homeless camp the landlord was warned about? That’s not just a financial loss. That’s a monument to poor decision-making.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not here to villainize anyone living in the encampment. This isn’t about homeless individuals making bad choices. This is about a property owner who had a clear, documented opportunity to mitigate a risk—and didn’t. They got a city violation. They got a quote from a professional cleanup company. They had two days to act. And they chose to wait. That’s not just unlucky. That’s negligent. And while we can debate the broader societal failures that lead to encampments forming in the first place (and trust us, we should), this case isn’t about solving homelessness. It’s about accountability. If you own commercial real estate and you ignore a fire hazard on your doorstep, you can’t act shocked when the building burns down.

The most absurd part? That it took a fire to fix the problem. Not community outreach. Not coordination with social services. Not even a dumpster and a fence. Just a slow-motion disaster that could’ve been avoided with a single phone call. And now, instead of paying a few thousand to Bio-One, Layson might be on the hook for nearly $600,000. That’s not just poetic justice. That’s a masterclass in why you don’t ignore official warnings about flammable human settlements behind your business.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if we were on the jury? We’d say: pay up, and maybe invest in a “No Camping” sign. With lights.

Case Overview

$581,191 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

R. Todd Goolsby

Goolsby, Proctor, Nelson & Lee

Relief Sought

$581,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc. business
Rep: R. Todd Goolsby

Defendants

Layson Commercial, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's failure to properly maintain the property led to a fire that damaged Plaintiff's insured's property.
2	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff's insured by failing to maintain the property in a manner that would prevent harm to it.

Petition Text

1,059 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Layson Commercial, LLC, Defendant. PETITION Plaintiff, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc. by and through the undersigned attorneys, avers as follows against Defendant Layson Commercial, LLC. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (PLM) is an insurance company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having its principal place of business at 2005 Market Street, Suite 1200, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, which is admitted by the Department of Financial Services to issue policies of property insurance in the State of Oklahoma. 2. At all material times, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company’s subrogor, Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc. (hereinafter “Deroche”), leased and occupied commercial space at the property located at or near 6507 E. 44th Suite 900, Tulsa, OK 74145 (hereinafter “Subject Property”). 3. Defendant, Layson Commercial, LLC (hereinafter “Layson”), is a company organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, having its principal place of business at 6511 E. 44th St., Tulsa, OK 74145. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Layson owned the Subject Property and leased it to Deroche and owned an adjacent property. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because Defendant regularly conducts business in Oklahoma and the acts and/or omissions giving rise to this action occurred within Tulsa County, Oklahoma. FACTS 6. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff’s insured Deroche leased the Subject Property and had a policy of insurance, Policy Number 12-D009-01-24 (hereinafter the “Policy”). 7. On December 16, 2024, the City of Tulsa issued Layson a property maintenance violation, instructing them to clear a homeless encampment between their buildings. 8. Third-party vendor Bio-One of Tulsa sent a proposal to Layson to clear the homeless encampment. The proposal was dated on December 17, 2024 and they offered to clean the area on either the 19th or the 20th. 9. Upon information and belief, Layson declined this offer, opting to have the encampment cleared at a later time. 10. On December 21, 2024, prior to Layson having the encampment cleared, there was a fire at the Subject Property (“Subject Loss”). 11. Subsequent investigation determined that the Subject Loss was the result of actions from the homeless encampment. 12. As a result of the Subject Loss, Deroche sustained significant property damage. 13. On account of the Subject Loss, Plaintiff paid to or behalf of the Insured the sum of $571,190.93 in damages, in addition to a $10,000.00 deductible, for a total loss of $581,190.93. 14. By virtue of such payments, the terms of the Policy, and by operation of law, Plaintiff is now subrogated to the rights and claims of its Insured against any and all third-parties responsible for the loss, to the extent of such payments made. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANT LAYSON COMMERCIAL, LLC 15. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth at length herein. 16. At all times relevant and material hereto, Layson owed a non-delegable duty to Deroche to properly maintain the Subject Property so it was not in a dangerous condition. 17. Layson, acting by and through its employees, agents, servants, and/or assigns, breached the aforementioned duty of care in one or more of the following negligent, reckless, and/or careless manners: a) failing to have the homeless encampment removed from the Subject Property in a timely manner; b) failing to protect the Subject Property from the creation of homeless encampment; c) creating and/or allowing a condition that was imminently or inherently dangerous, resulting in property damage; d) failing to employ adequate safeguards and preventative measures which would have avoided, prevented, or stopped the Subject Loss from occurring; and e) otherwise failing to act reasonably under the circumstances. 18. The damages sustained by Deroche were the direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of Layson, which is liable for the damages sustained. 19. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, Plaintiff paid to or behalf of the Insured the sum of $571,190.93 in damages, in addition to a $10,000.00 deductible, for a total loss of $581,190.93. 20. By virtue of such payments, the terms of the Policy, and by operation of law, Plaintiff is now subrogated to the rights and claims of its Insured against any and all third-parties responsible for the loss, to the extent of such payments made. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Layson for damages in excess of $581,000.00, together with interest, costs of suit and such other relief the court may deem appropriate. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT v. LAYSON COMMERCIAL, LLC 21. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 22. Layson, for good and valuable consideration, agreed and/or contracted with Deroche to lease the Subject Property. 23. Express and/or implied terms of the contract/lease included that Layson would ensure that the Subject Property was maintained in such a manner that would prevent harm to it, including but not limited safeguarding it from homeless encampments. 24. The damages sustained by Deroche were the direct and proximate result of the breach of contract by Layson, which is liable for the damages sustained. 25. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, Plaintiff paid to or on behalf of the Insured the sum of $571,190.93 in damages, in addition to a $10,000.00 deductible, for a total loss of $581,190.93. 26. By virtue of such payments, the terms of the Policy, and by operation of law, Plaintiff is now subrogated to the rights and claims of its Insured against any and all third-parties responsible for the loss, to the extent of such payments made. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Layson for damages in excess of $581,000.00, together with interest, costs of suit and such other relief the court may deem appropriate. Date: March 3, 2026 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEYS LIEN CLAIMED Respectfully submitted, [signature] R. Todd Goolsby, OBA No. 12676 GOOLSBY, PROCTOR, NELSON & LEE 01 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 400 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 524-2400 (O) | (405) 525-6004 (F) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Deroche Building Supply Holdings, LLC a/k/a Deroche Building Supply, Inc. a/k/a Crossroads Building Supply, Inc.