When my truck is towed after an accident, can the wrecker hold it until I also pay the environmental cleanup company?
Plain-English summary
When a truck accident spills hazardous material, two different services usually happen at the scene. A wrecker operator tows away the truck and trailer. A separate environmental remediation company contains and removes the hazmat. Both expect to be paid.
Wreckers have a strong collection tool, a statutory possessory lien under 42 O.S. §§ 91 and 91A that lets them hold the vehicle until paid. The question Senator Frix raised: can the wrecker also hold the vehicle hostage for the environmental cleanup bill?
AG Drummond said no. Statutory liens are "strictly confined" to the terms of the statute creating them. Sections 91/91A grant a possessory lien only when (1) the lien-claimant possesses the vehicle, (2) the claimant rendered a service to the owner, (3) the service is one specifically enumerated in the statute (storage, towing, material, labor, skill for protection or carriage), and (4) the claimant still possesses the vehicle.
Environmental remediation companies fail at least two of these elements: they don't possess the vehicle, and their services (containing and removing hazmat from the accident site) are not on the statute's list. The remediation benefits the public and the environment, not the vehicle.
Two related conclusions:
- Once the wrecker is paid for its lien-secured services, the vehicle must be released. The wrecker cannot hold the vehicle to enforce a non-lien debt.
- A truck and a trailer are separate articles of property. If a wrecker tows both from the same accident, each gets its own possessory lien, not a single combined lien.
The opinion notes that vehicle owners are still liable for environmental cleanup costs under the Oklahoma Emergency Response Act, and a wrecker operator may collect those costs by separate statutory authority or contract. The wrecker just cannot use a possessory lien to do it.
What this means for you
If your truck or trailer is towed after a hazmat accident
You owe the wrecker for towing and storage; once you pay, you can demand release of your vehicle. Do not let the wrecker hold the vehicle to force payment of environmental cleanup bills: that's not within the lien.
You still owe the cleanup bill (the Oklahoma Emergency Response Act makes the vehicle owner the "responsible party" for cleanup costs). The remediation company can sue you separately. But it cannot use the wrecker as a collection agent through a lien on your truck.
If you are a wrecker operator
Your possessory lien is limited to your own enumerated services: towing, storage, materials, labor, and skill for protection, improvement, safekeeping, or carriage. You cannot extend the lien to cover the environmental remediation invoice from a separate company.
For "nonconsensual tows" you may be permitted to collect environmental remediation costs as part of your bill (per 47 O.S. §§ 953.1(A), 953.2(A)). But that authority does not turn the cleanup costs into lien-secured amounts. If your bill includes those costs and the owner pays only for the towing/storage portion, you must still release the vehicle.
If you tow a truck and trailer separately, treat them as separate liens. The lien values may differ (different storage costs, different per-day rates, etc.) and an owner can pay for one and reclaim it without paying for the other.
If you operate an environmental remediation company
Your cleanup costs are recoverable from the responsible party (vehicle owner) directly under 27A O.S. §§ 4-1-103(G), 4-1-106(D). You do not have a possessory lien on the vehicle. Plan your billing and collections accordingly. If you want lien protection, the AG suggests this is a job for the legislature.
If you are an insurance adjuster
When settling an accident with a hazmat component, you'll see two bills: wrecker (lien-secured) and remediation (not). The wrecker's bill must be paid to release the vehicle. The remediation bill is a separate invoice the responsible party (often your insured) owes. Coordinate accordingly.
If you are a transportation or insurance attorney
The opinion narrows the scope of statutory liens in Oklahoma. The principle ("statutory liens are strictly confined") applies broadly: any attempt to extend a statutory lien beyond its enumerated services is likely to fail. Counsel clients accordingly when reviewing tow-bill disputes.
If you are a state legislator
The AG flagged that the legislature could create a specific lien for environmental remediation services if it wanted. Until then, remediation companies are general unsecured creditors of the responsible party.
Common questions
Q: My truck is in a tow yard and the wrecker says I owe $5,000 for the tow plus $30,000 for environmental cleanup. Can they hold the truck for both?
A: They can hold the truck for the $5,000 tow charge (the lien). They cannot hold the truck for the $30,000 cleanup charge unless that charge is for a service listed in §§ 91/91A and the wrecker (not a separate company) actually performed it.
Q: What if the wrecker contracts with the environmental company and bills me a single combined invoice?
A: The contracts and combined billing don't change the lien's scope. The lien still attaches only to the wrecker's enumerated services. Pay the wrecker portion, demand release.
Q: I own the trailer but a different company owns the truck. Who pays what?
A: Each piece of property has its own possessory lien. The wrecker can hold the truck for the truck's lien amount and the trailer for the trailer's lien amount. Each owner pays their respective bill.
Q: What is a "nonconsensual tow"?
A: A tow without the owner's consent or knowledge: like when law enforcement orders a tow after an accident. Rates for nonconsensual tows are set by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (47 O.S. §§ 953.1, 953.2, 966). In nonconsensual tow scenarios, the wrecker may collect environmental remediation costs as part of its overall invoice but, again, the lien doesn't secure those amounts.
Q: Can the wrecker sue me separately for the cleanup costs even after I've paid the towing bill?
A: Yes, in the right circumstances (if the wrecker actually paid for or performed the cleanup or has contractual or statutory authority to bill for it). The point of this opinion is that the lien doesn't cover those costs, not that the costs aren't owed.
Q: What if I dispute the wrecker's tow charges?
A: Pay under protest if necessary to recover the vehicle, then dispute the bill in court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that statutory liens are creatures of statute, so any overcharge claim is a separate civil dispute.
Background and statutory framework
Oklahoma's possessory lien statutes are titled and untitled property versions of the same idea (42 O.S. §§ 91 and 91A). They give a possessory lien to "any person who, while lawfully in possession of [the property], renders any service to the owner thereof by furnishing storage, rental space, material, labor or skill for the protection, improvement, safekeeping, towing, right to occupy space, storage, or carriage thereof."
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held statutory liens are "in derogation of the common law" and must be "strictly confined to the ambit of the enactment giving [them] birth" (H2K Tech., 2021; Riffe Petroleum, 1980). That principle controls: lien-statute words are the limit of the right and the remedy.
The Oklahoma Emergency Response Act (27A O.S. §§ 4-1-101 to 4-1-107) handles the cleanup side. It makes the owner/operator/controller of activity at the time of release the "responsible party," who must pay for cleanup. DEQ regulates the cleanup process.
The wrecker-side framework is in 47 O.S. §§ 951–966, with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission setting nonconsensual-tow rates.
The 2000 OK AG 42 opinion already noted that wreckers are not responsible for hazmat remediation. This opinion completes that picture: just as wreckers can't be forced to do remediation, they can't use the possessory lien to collect for remediation done by others.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- 42 O.S. §§ 91, 91A, Possessory lien
- 47 O.S. §§ 951, 953.1, 953.2, 962, 966, Wrecker rates and liens
- 27A O.S. §§ 4-1-101 to 4-1-107, Oklahoma Emergency Response Act
- OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 252:210: DEQ remediation rules
Cases:
- H2K Tech., Inc. v. WSP USA, Inc., 2021 OK 59, 503 P.3d 1177, statutory liens strictly construed
- Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat'l Corp., 1980 OK 112, 614 P.2d 576, statutory lien terms are the measure of the right
- Williamson v. Winningham, 1947 OK 231, 186 P.2d 644, possession is essential to possessory lien
Source
- Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/2025-08.html
- Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G. Opinion 2025-8 2025 OK AG 8.pdf
Original opinion text
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-8
The Honorable Avery Frix
Oklahoma State Senate, District 9
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 413
Oklahoma, City, OK 73105
July 1, 2025
Dear Senator Frix:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect,
the following questions:
1. Under what circumstances, if any, may a wrecker operator’s possessory lien on a
truck and trailer be extended to include the cost of services performed by a separate
environmental remediation company?
2. To the extent that such a possessory lien extends to include services performed by the
environmental remediation company, may the wrecker operator withhold release of
the property until payment for all services has been rendered?
3. May a single possessory lien cover both a truck and trailer towed by a wrecker
operator, or are the truck and trailer each subject to separate possessory liens?
I.
SUMMARY
Oklahoma statutes grant a possessory lien to a wrecker operator that (1) renders a service to a
vehicle owner; (2) which service is enumerated in statute; (3) while the wrecker operator lawfully
possesses the vehicle; and (4) the wrecker operator is still in possession of the vehicle. See 42
O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 91(A)(2); 91A(A)(2)(a). 1 Statutory liens like this one are “strictly confined” to
the terms of the statute creating them. H2K Tech., Inc. v. WSP USA, Inc., 2021 OK 59, ¶ 8, 503
P.3d 1177, 1181. Because an environmental remediation company neither (1) possesses the
1
Two different statutes govern these liens: one for property with a certificate of title, see 42 O.S.Supp.2024,
§ 91, and one for property without, see 42 O.S.Supp.2024, § 91A. While there are other differences between these
provisions, the language regarding possessory liens is identical. Accordingly, this opinion applies to all vehicles
regardless of the status of their title.
Representative Avery Frix
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 2
vehicle, nor (2) provides one of the services listed in title 42, sections 91 or 91A (“Sections
91/91A”), a lien created under either of those statutes cannot be extended to include the cost of
services performed by the remediation company. For these reasons, a wrecker also cannot withhold
release of the vehicle based solely on the owner’s non-payment for services provided by the
environmental remediation company. Finally, trucks and trailers are separate articles of personal
property per the plain language of Sections 91/91A and therefore should be subject to separate
liens where applicable under the statute.
II.
BACKGROUND
When a vehicle accident results in the release of a hazardous substance, the Oklahoma Emergency
Response Act, 27A O.S.2021, §§ 4-1-101–4-1-107, sets forth the responsibilities of the first
responder, the lead official of the relevant state or local law enforcement agency, and the
Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”). In essence, first responders begin by taking
“protective action measures,” and, if the event is “of a significant nature,” the first responders or
lead official must contact DEQ “as soon as is reasonably possible.” Id. § 4-1-103(E). DEQ is then
empowered to “initiate cleanup operations of the release [of hazardous waste].” Id. § 4-1-103(G).
The cost of environmental cleanup is borne by the “responsible party,” defined as “any person who
owned, operated, or otherwise controlled activities at the facility at the time the incident[.]” 27A
O.S.2021, §§ 4-1-103(G), 4-1-102(10). 2 By DEQ rule, the responsible party “may employ any
licensed highway spill remediation service unless the on-scene law enforcement officer has
determined that there are hazardous conditions that pose an imminent threat to health or the
environment . . . [in which case] the law enforcement officer may contact any licensed highway
spill remediation service . . . needed to resolve the emergency.” OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 252:2101-3(a).
Separately, vehicle accidents often require a wrecker to tow away inoperable vehicles. As noted
in a previous opinion from this office, wrecker operators are not responsible for remediating
hazardous substances: “the simple task of a wrecker or towing service is to clean up after an
accident to ensure highway safety . . . [t]hus, where hazardous or dangerous materials are involved
in an accident scene, it is not the obligation of the wrecker who removes vehicles to also remove
the hazardous or dangerous materials.” 2000 OK AG 42, ¶ 9.
Your questions involve a scenario where a wrecker has towed and stored a vehicle following an
accident where environmental remediation was necessary. The rates charged by the wrecker
operator in this scenario may depend on such variables as distance towed, hours spent on the tow,
size of the vehicle, and whether any specialized skill or service was required. 3 In certain cases, the
wrecker operator may also collect the costs of environmental remediation. See 47 O.S.2021 &
2
“Facility” is defined to include “any . . . motor vehicle.” Id. § 4-1-102(11)(a).
For a “nonconsensual tow,” the allowable rates charged by a wrecker operator are set by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission. See 47 O.S.2021 & Supp.2024, §§ 953.1, 953.2, 966. A “nonconsensual tow” is defined to
mean, in relevant part, “the transportation of a vehicle without the consent or knowledge of the vehicle’s owner,
possessor, agent, insurer, lienholder, or any other person in possession of or in charge of any vehicle[.]” Id. § 951.
3
Representative Avery Frix
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 3
Supp.2024, §§ 953.1(A), 953.2(A). You ask whether the statutory lien allowed for wreckers in
possession of a vehicle may be extended to cover the costs of environmental remediation.
III.
DISCUSSION
When a wrecker removes and stores a vehicle following an accident, it is granted a possessory lien
to ensure payment for its services. 47 O.S.2021, § 962. As noted above, Sections 91/91A govern
the terms of the lien. See supra footnote 1. In relevant part, Sections 91/91A provide that:
Any person who, while lawfully in possession of. . . [any vehicle, all-terrain
vehicle, utility vehicle, manufactured home, motorcycle, boat, outboard motor, or
trailer], renders any service to the owner thereof by furnishing storage, rental
space, material, labor or skill for the protection, improvement, safekeeping, towing,
right to occupy space, storage, or carriage thereof, has a special lien thereon,
dependent on possession, for the compensation, if any, which is due to such person
from the owner for such service.
42 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 91(A)(1)(a), (A)(2); 91A(A)(1)(b), (A)(2)(a) (emphasis added). Statutory
liens such as these are “in derogation of the common law,” and are therefore “strictly confined to
the ambit of the enactment giving [them] birth.” H2K Tech., 2021 OK 59, ¶ 8, 503 P.3d at 1181
(citing Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat’l Corp. Inc., 1980 OK 112, ¶ 5, 614 P.2d 576, 579). “The
terms prescribed by statute cannot be ignored; they are the measure of the right and of the remedy.”
Id.
A.
A wrecker cannot extend a lien granted under Sections 91/91A to cover the costs of
environmental remediation performed by a separate company.
To obtain a possessory lien under Sections 91/91A, a wrecker operator must (1) render a service
to the owner of the vehicle or other property; (2) which service is specifically enumerated in the
statute; (3) while in lawful possession of the vehicle or other property; and (4) still be in possession
of the vehicle or other property. See 42 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 91(A)(2); 91A(A)(2)(a).
As to the first and second elements, services that qualify for a lien are specifically enumerated in
Sections 91/91A, and include “furnishing storage, rental space, material, labor or skill for the
protection, improvement, safekeeping, towing, right to occupy space, storage or carriage of” the
vehicle or other property. Put simply, the services listed in Sections 91/91A revolve around the
removal, securing, and storage of the property that is subject to the lien. The wrecker operator
plainly provides such services to a wrecked vehicle. See, e.g., 2000 OK AG 42. An environmental
remediation provider does not. Services provided by an environmental remediation company are
just that – the containment and ultimate removal of hazardous materials from an accident site. See,
e.g., OKLA. ADMIN. CODE § 252:210-1-2 (defining “remediation” under DEQ rules implementing
the Oklahoma Emergency Response Act). The company’s services provide a benefit to the public
and the surrounding area, not to the vehicle that the wrecker removes. Because Section 91/91A
liens attach only with respect to specific services provided for the benefit of the property subject
to the lien, and environmental remediation companies neither provide those services nor benefit
Representative Avery Frix
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 4
that property, the statute does not allow for attachment of a possessory lien to secure payment for
environmental remediation services. This is particularly the case where, as here, the statutory
language creating the lien is to be interpreted narrowly. H2K Tech., 2021 OK 59, ¶ 8, 503 P.3d at
1181.
Regarding the third and fourth elements, taking and maintaining possession are essential to
obtaining a possessory lien. See Williamson v. Winningham, 1947 OK 231, ¶ 22, 186 P.2d 644,
650. Here, “possession” includes both actual (i.e., physical) possession of the vehicle and
constructive possession, which involves a level of control over the property even without physical
possession. See 42 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 91(H), 91A(H). Unlike a wrecker operator, an
environmental remediation provider is unlikely to have actual or constructive control over a
vehicle, either at the time of providing the service or anytime thereafter. Again, the environmental
remediation provider’s responsibility is to contain and remove hazardous materials from the
accident site, not to secure, remove, and store the vehicle(s) involved.
Because the terms of the statute are not met, a wrecker operator cannot extend the value of a
possessory lien under Sections 91/91A to include the costs of environmental remediation
associated with a vehicle accident. To be clear, this is not to say that vehicle owners are not liable
for these costs. As explained above, they plainly are. See 27A O.S.2021, §§ 4-1-103(I)(2), 4-1106(D). But a wrecker operator cannot use a possessory lien as a mechanism to collect those costs
where the terms of Sections 91/91A are not clearly satisfied. 4 See Riffe Petroleum Co., 1980 OK
112, ¶ 5, 614 P.2d at 579 (explaining that a lien cannot “be created out of a sense of fairness if the
terms of the statutory lien are found too narrow and have not been met”).
B.
The wrecker operator must relinquish the vehicle or other property once the value of
the possessory lien has been paid in full.
As explained above, a wrecker operator who has possession of a vehicle or other property subject
to a possessory lien cannot extend the lien to cover the cost of environmental remediation services.
Under Sections 91/91A, a possessory lien attaches to the property “for the compensation, if any,
which is due to such person [i.e., the wrecker operator] from the owner for such service [i.e., one
of the enumerated services in Sections 91/91A].” 42 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 91(A)(2), 91A(A)(2)
(emphasis added). Once the wrecker operator has been paid for its services, the lien is extinguished
and the property must be released.
As noted above, there are situations—particularly in the case of a “nonconsensual tow”—where a wrecker
operator may be permitted to collect the costs of environmental remediation of an accident site. 47 O.S.2021 &
Supp.2024, §§ 953.1(A), 953.2(A). Accordingly, a wrecker operator may, whether by statutory authorization or
contractual arrangement, stand in the shoes of the environmental remediation company to collect the costs of
remediating the accident site. Nevertheless, it is clear from the language of Sections 91/91A that the wrecker operator
cannot obtain a possessory lien to aid in its collection of these costs. Such liens are a statutory creation, and the
Legislature has the authority to create a specific lien for environmental remediation services, should it choose to do
so. Williamson, 1947 OK 231, ¶ 24, 186 P.2d at 650 (“Legislative authority exists by statute to create a right of lien
where no such right existed at common law.”).
4
Representative Avery Frix
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 9
C.
A.G. Opinion
Page 5
A truck and trailer are distinct articles of property under Sections 91/91A, and
therefore a separate possessory lien will attach to each of them, as allowed by statute.
In a vehicle accident involving a truck and trailer, there may be scenarios where both must be
towed. You ask whether, in such a situation, a wrecker operator is entitled to a single possessory
lien over both truck and trailer, or a separate lien for each.
“Words used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, except when a contrary
intention plainly appears.” 25 O.S.2021, § 1. Here, your question is answered by the plain language
of Sections 91/91A. The lien procedures set forth in those provisions apply to “any vehicle, allterrain vehicle, utility vehicle, manufactured home, motorcycle, boat, outboard motor, or trailer .
. . .” (emphasis added). Merriam-Webster defines “truck” as “an automotive vehicle with a short
chassis equipped with a swivel for attaching a trailer and used especially for the hauling of freight.”
Truck, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truck (last visited June
12, 2025). Conversely, “trailer” is defined as “a nonautomotive vehicle designed to be hauled by
road.” Trailer, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trailer (last
visited June 12, 2025). Thus, while trucks and trailers are used in tandem, they are individual articles
with distinct uses: one “hauls” while the other is “hauled.”
Sections 91/91A treat trucks and trailers as independent articles of personal property, 5 expressly
listing “vehicle” separately from “trailer.” This suggests that a wrecker operator could have a
possessory lien over one or separate possessory liens over each, but not a single lien that covers
both. This also makes sense as a practical matter: a wrecker operator could tow away the truck
without the trailer, and vice versa, and the cost of towing and storing each is likely different,
resulting in different lien values for truck and trailer. To the extent that a wrecker operator is in
possession of both the truck and trailer and has rendered the requisite services thereon to the benefit
of the owner, separate possessory liens attach to both a truck and its trailer.
*
*
*
5
Notably, title 47, section 1102 of the Oklahoma Statutes also distinguishes trucks and trailers as separate
articles in its definition of “combined laden weight.” The definition notes that “‘combined laden weight’ means the
weight of a truck or station wagon and its cargo or payload transported thereon, or the weight of a truck or trucktractor plus the weight of any trailers or semitrailers together with the cargo or payload transported thereon.” 47
O.S.Supp.2024, § 1102(5).
Representative Avery Frix
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 9
A.G. Opinion
Page 6
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. A wrecker operator’s possessory lien on a truck and trailer may not be
extended to include the cost of services performed by a separate
environmental remediation company because the remediation company
does not satisfy the requirements of title 42, sections 91 or 91A.
2. Once the wrecker operator has been compensated for the services giving
rise to the possessory lien, the property subject to the lien must be released.
3. A truck and trailer are separate pieces of property under title 42, sections
91 and 91A. Therefore, if a wrecker operator tows each from a single
accident site separate possessory liens would apply to the truck and to the
trailer.
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
ELLEN CARR
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL