Tulsa Oilers Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Tulsa Oilers v. Morgan Towing and Recovery of Tulsa, LLC
What's This Case About?
Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a case about fender benders, ice resurfacing malfunctions, or a rogue Zamboni driver going rogue in the parking lot. No. This is a full-on legal face-off between a minor league hockey team and a towing company—because the tow truck folks allegedly stiffed the Oilers on their ad bill. Yes, you read that right. A hockey team is suing a towing company for not paying for advertising. If this were a sitcom pitch, we’d say it’s too on the nose. But in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, this is real life. And the stakes? Fifty-two thousand, eight hundred dollars. That’s not chump change when you’re talking about billboard space behind the penalty box.
So who are these players, off the ice? On one side, we’ve got the Tulsa Oilers, a proud member of the ECHL (that’s the East Coast Hockey League, for those of you who don’t spend your weekends yelling at the TV during third-period power plays). They play at the BOK Center, wear orange and black, and apparently run a pretty slick sponsorship operation on the side. Their business model isn’t just slap shots and fight nights—it’s also selling ad space to local businesses who want to be seen by thousands of fans, many of whom are probably too busy arguing about offside calls to notice they’re being marketed to. But hey, exposure is exposure.
On the other side? Morgan Towing and Recovery, a family of LLCs with names so similar they could be a law firm from a bad legal drama: Morgan Towing and Recovery of Tulsa, Morgan Services Company, and Morgan Towing and Recovery of Muskogee. They’re in the business of hauling away your car when you’ve parked like a maniac or gotten into a scrape on I-44. Their brand promise, presumably: “We’ll get your car out of the ditch—just don’t ask us to pay our bills on time.” The point of contact listed in the contract? Derrell Thompson. The signatory? Mick Morgan, owner. And while we don’t know if he drives a monster truck or wears a leather jacket with “I Brake for Nobody” stitched on the back, we do know he signed a three-year deal to be the “Official Towing Partner of the Tulsa Oilers.” Which, honestly, sounds like the most metal sponsorship combo since a death metal band sponsored a chainsaw competition.
Now, let’s talk about what went down. Back on August 17, 2023, the two parties inked a shiny three-season advertising agreement. The deal? Morgan Towing would pay $36,000 per year—broken into twelve monthly payments of $3,000—for a full suite of promotional goodies. We’re talking ice-level billboards (plural), video board spots, in-game features, four luxury suite nights (perfect for impressing clients or hiding from your in-laws), and—get this—Oilers logos on Morgan Towing vehicles. That’s right: the tow trucks themselves were supposed to become rolling billboards for the team. It’s genius, really. Every time one of those rigs shows up at an accident scene, someone’s yelling, “Hey, is that the Tulsa Oilers logo?” and suddenly, someone’s thinking about buying season tickets. It’s synergy, baby.
The contract even had an opt-out clause: if Morgan Towing wanted to bail, they could do it with written notice by February 1, 2024. They didn’t. They paid their first $3,000 on August 17, 2023. Then, on August 21, they were invoiced—for twelve payments at once. Yes, all twelve. The Oilers weren’t messing around. They sent invoices for the entire first year in a single batch, like a financial ambush. And for a while, it worked. Morgan Towing paid again in January 2024 ($6,000), then May 2024 ($3,000), and again in September and November. But then—crickets.
By December 11, 2024, the last payment was made. After that? Silence. No calls. No emails. No “Hey, we’re reevaluating our marketing strategy.” Nothing. Meanwhile, the Oilers kept delivering. The billboards stayed up. The video spots ran. The luxury suites were presumably available. And the tow trucks? Well, we don’t know if they ever got the Oilers logo treatment—but the contract says Morgan Towing was supposed to handle that part. The Oilers weren’t supposed to paint the trucks themselves. (Though honestly, can you imagine a team of hockey PR staff showing up at a tow yard with stencils and spray paint? That’s a scene.)
So why are we in court? Because the Oilers are now claiming breach of contract—meaning, “You signed a deal, you got the stuff, you didn’t pay. Pay up.” That’s count one. Count two? Labor or services rendered—a legal way of saying, “We did the work, you didn’t stop us, you didn’t complain, you just ghosted us. That’s on you.” And count three? Unjust enrichment—which translates to, “You got the benefits of this sponsorship—brand exposure, logo placement, luxury boxes, the whole package—and you didn’t pay. That’s not fair. You can’t get a free ride just because you stopped answering invoices.”
The demand? $52,800. Let’s put that in perspective. For a small business like a towing company, that’s a lot of tow jobs. At an average tow fee of $150, that’s 352 vehicles hauled just to break even on this bill. For the Oilers, it’s less than 1% of their annual operating budget (we’re guessing—no one publishes minor league hockey finances on Wikipedia). But still, $52.8K is serious money. It’s not just pocket change they’re chasing. It’s the equivalent of 17 luxury suite nights, or 17,600 hot dogs sold at $3 a pop. Or, if you’re feeling poetic, it’s enough to pay a Zamboni driver for over a year. Point is, this isn’t a clerical error. This is a full-blown sponsorship meltdown.
Now, here’s the really wild part: the Oilers are still doing the work. As of the filing date—March 25, 2025—the 2024-2025 season is still ongoing. The contract hasn’t been terminated. There’s no mention of the Oilers pulling the ads, taking down the billboards, or revoking suite access. They’re allegedly still honoring their end of the deal while simultaneously suing for nonpayment. That’s like a food truck continuing to serve tacos to a customer who hasn’t paid in three months, then filing a lawsuit mid-bite. It’s either extreme professionalism… or extreme financial desperation.
So what’s our take? The most absurd thing here isn’t that a hockey team is suing a tow company. It’s that this entire dispute hinges on a sponsorship deal that sounds like it was dreamed up during a post-game beer summit. “Hey, you tow cars. We play hockey. Let’s team up!” And sure, on paper, it makes sense—local business meets local team, everyone wins. But in practice? It’s a masterclass in how not to manage a payment schedule. Who invoices twelve months at once? That’s not accounting. That’s a trap. And while Morgan Towing can’t exactly cry poverty after signing a three-year, $108,000 deal (plus playoff escalators—yes, there was a 5% bonus if the Oilers made the playoffs, which they apparently did), they also didn’t exactly get a chance to course-correct. One opt-out date. No mid-contract check-ins. Just: pay up or get sued.
We’re not rooting for the Oilers to get blood from a stone. But we are rooting for someone—anyone—to finally answer the damn invoices. And maybe, just maybe, for Mick Morgan to show up at a game in a tow truck covered in Oilers logos, toss a giant check onto the ice, and let the Zamboni run over it. Now that’s the kind of sponsorship activation we can get behind.
But until then? Welcome to civil court, where the only penalty box is the courtroom, and the only fights are fought with subpoenas.
Case Overview
-
Tulsa Oilers Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Tulsa Oilers
business
Rep: John P. Seidenberger and Coy Coffman of Coffman & Seidenberger, PLLC
- Morgan Towing and Recovery of Tulsa, LLC business
- Morgan Services Company, LLC business
- Morgan Towing and Recovery of Muskogee, LLC business
| # | Cause of Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Breach of Contract | Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the terms of the Advertising and Sponsorship Agreement by failing to make required payments. |
| 2 | Labor or Services Rendered | Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to request that advertising services cease and failed to object or respond to invoices. |
| 3 | Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit | Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was unjustly enriched by Plaintiff's advertising services. |