CJ-2026-1079 - Michael Payne and Jennifer Payne v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: you don’t expect a tornado to hit your house and then get lowballed by your insurance company for six squares of shingles while your roof slowly caves in. But that’s exactly what Michael and Jennifer Payne say happened—after a tornado tore through their Owasso, Oklahoma home in April 2025, State Farm allegedly responded with the energy of someone who’d rather be anywhere else, offering barely enough to cover a new shed, let alone a full structural recovery. Now, the Paynes are suing the insurance giant for over $32,000 in actual damages and up to $75,000 in punitive damages, claiming not just breach of contract, but full-on bad faith—a legal slap in the face that basically says, “You didn’t just mess up, you meant to screw us.” And folks, if this doesn’t sound like a David vs. Goliath showdown with wind damage and paperwork, we don’t know what does.

So who are these people caught in the storm—literally and figuratively? Michael and Jennifer Payne are your average Oklahoma homeowners, the kind who pay their premiums on time, keep their gutters clean, and probably have a “Bless This Home” sign by the front door. They own a property at 9202 North 95th East Place in Owasso—a 50-square roof, for those playing along in roofing math—which means we’re talking about a decent-sized family home, not some weekend cabin. Their insurer? None other than State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the red-painted, “Like a Good Neighbor” behemoth that’s supposed to show up when disaster strikes. Instead of neighborly concern, though, the Paynes say they got runaround, delays, and a claim settlement so insultingly small it might as well have come with a pat on the head and a “There, there.”

Here’s how the disaster unfolded: on April 2, 2025, a tornado—yes, an actual tornado, not just “strong winds,” not “a gust,” not “Mother Nature being dramatic”—ripped through their neighborhood, doing what tornadoes do: damage. The Paynes had a valid policy, policy number 36CGH5476, fully paid up, with coverage for exactly this kind of catastrophe. They reported the loss promptly. State Farm acknowledged it, assigned claim number 3685F216R, and for a while, everything seemed like it was moving forward. But then… radio silence. Weeks passed. No inspection. No offer. No help. Finally, on June 15—over two months after the storm—State Farm sent an adjuster. Two months. That’s longer than some people wait between haircuts.

When the adjuster did show up, they estimated damage to just six squares of shingles (that’s 600 square feet, or roughly 12% of the roof), plus a few gutters, downspouts, and some fencing. The resulting payout? $2,461.27. Let’s put that in perspective: a full roof replacement on a 50-square home can easily run $15,000 to $25,000, depending on materials and labor. Even partial damage could cost way more than two and a half grand. The Paynes’ contractor—someone who actually knows what a shingle should look like—inspected the property and said, “Uh, no, this is way worse.” He found ongoing leaks, structural concerns, and damage that clearly required a full roof replacement. He even reached out to State Farm with photos, estimates, and a polite request for a reinspection. And what did State Farm do? They sent an engineer. On October 21—six months after the tornado. The engineer’s report, dated November 17, finally arrived on December 8 (because efficiency is clearly not their brand), and surprise, surprise—it backed up the original lowball estimate. No change. No apology. No additional payment.

Then comes the real kicker: on December 17, the Paynes, tired of waiting and watching their home deteriorate, submitted a partial proof of loss based on their contractor’s estimate—something allowed under Oklahoma law (36 O.S. § 3629). State Farm’s response? “Nah, too late.” They claimed it was filed outside the 60-day window required by the policy, ignoring the fact that they were the ones who caused the delay by taking months to respond, never asking for documentation, and dragging their feet on every step. It’s like missing a flight because the airline didn’t send your boarding pass, then being told, “Sorry, gate closed.” No, Karen, you created the problem.

Now, why are we in court? Legally, the Paynes are making two big claims. First: breach of contract. That’s a fancy way of saying, “We paid you every month like good customers. You promised to cover storm damage. A storm hit. You didn’t pay. That’s not how deals work.” The second claim is juicier: bad faith. In insurance law, this is the nuclear option. It means the company didn’t just make a mistake—it acted unreasonably, unfairly, and possibly with the intent to save money at the customer’s expense. The Paynes allege State Farm intentionally underpaid, delayed inspections, ignored evidence, and then hid behind technicalities to avoid paying what was owed. If proven, that’s not just a slap on the wrist—it opens the door to punitive damages, which aren’t about fixing the harm but punishing the wrongdoer.

And what do the Paynes want? They’re asking for $32,000.77 in actual damages—the cost to repair their home, the amount State Farm allegedly still hasn’t paid. That’s not an outrageous sum for a tornado-damaged roof, especially with interior water damage and structural concerns. But here’s where it gets spicy: they’re also seeking up to $75,000 in punitive damages. That’s not for the roof. That’s for the attitude. That’s saying, “You didn’t just fail us—you made it worse, and you need to be held accountable so you don’t do this to someone else.” In a case under $75,000, this is a big swing. It’s not just about the money; it’s about sending a message to a trillion-dollar company that messes with regular people after disasters.

So what’s our take? Look, insurance is supposed to be the safety net. You pay your premiums for years, hoping you’ll never need it, and when disaster strikes—fire, storm, tornado—you expect the company to step up. Instead, State Farm allegedly treated the Paynes like a nuisance, not a customer. The most absurd part? That after six months, they sent an engineer whose report magically confirmed the original too-low estimate, then used their own delays as an excuse to reject a legal proof of loss. It’s like a restaurant serving cold food, blaming the customer for not complaining fast enough, and then charging them for the meal. And let’s not forget: this all happened in Oklahoma, a state no stranger to severe weather, where insurance companies have a special responsibility to act quickly and fairly. If State Farm wanted to avoid a lawsuit, they could’ve just paid for the damn roof. Instead, they’re now facing a jury trial—because nothing says “we value our customers” like forcing a family to sue just to get their home fixed.

We’re rooting for the Paynes. Not because they’re guaranteed to win, but because this case is a textbook example of why people hate big insurance companies. It’s not the storms that break homes—it’s the paperwork, the delays, the nickel-and-diming, the “we’ll get back to you” that never comes. If this goes to trial, let’s hope the jury remembers: when you sell someone a promise of protection, you don’t get to vanish when the wind starts howling.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ashley Leavitt

HOLBROOK LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Relief Sought

$32,001 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Michael Payne and Jennifer Payne individual
Rep: Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiffs claim that State Farm breached its contractual duty to pay for storm damages under the valid Policy.
2	Bad Faith	Plaintiffs claim that State Farm acted in bad faith by underpaying, delaying, and failing to investigate their claim.

Petition Text

1,245 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL PAYNE and JENNIFER PAYNE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ) Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, Michael Payne and Jennifer Payne, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"), and for their causes of action against Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" and/or "State Farm") state and allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Michael Payne and Jennifer Payne, now, and at all times relevant hereto, were citizens of the State of Oklahoma and owned real property in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY 3. This action is brought before this Court for the reason that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution for the United States. 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 4. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133, venue is proper in this Court as the acts complained of herein occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 5. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. At all times material hereto, in consideration for premiums paid by Plaintiffs, there was in full force and effect a policy of insurance issued by State Farm to Plaintiffs, bearing the policy number 36CGH5476 (hereinafter referred to as the “Policy”). 7. Under the terms of the Policy, Defendant agreed to insure Plaintiffs against certain losses to Plaintiffs’ property located at 9202 North 95th East Place, Owasso, Oklahoma, 74055, (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”). 8. On or about April 2, 2025, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect, Plaintiffs’ Property was damaged as a result of a tornado. 9. The Policy insured the Property against the type of loss and damage suffered. 10. Plaintiffs reported the loss to Defendant; Defendant acknowledged the same and assigned claim number 3685F216R to this loss (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim”). All other conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to coverage and benefits under the Policy have been satisfied. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract) 11. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 12. The Policy constitutes a valid and binding contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 13. Plaintiffs timely paid Defendant the owed Policy premiums. 14. In exchange for the Policy provisions, State Farm agreed to provide Plaintiffs insurance coverage to Plaintiffs’ Property. 15. On or about April 2, 2025, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid, Plaintiffs suffered a covered loss: tornado damage. 16. Plaintiffs have fully performed under the Policy and have demanded that Defendant perform; however, Defendant has refused to perform and has materially breached the Policy. 17. The acts and omissions of State Farm, in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, were unreasonable and resulted in Plaintiffs being paid less than what they were owed under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the Defendant. The acts and omissions of the Defendant in the investigation, evaluation, delay, and payment of Plaintiffs’ claim were unreasonable and constitute a breach of contract for which contractual damages are hereby sought. 18. Plaintiffs remain damaged in an amount not less than $32,000.77 for the actual damages to their dwelling caused by the tornado. 19. Plaintiffs have been forced to expend money for court costs and litigation for which they should be compensated. 20. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2008(A)(2) and the above facts and circumstances, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Oklahoma statutory and common law. The total amount demanded by Plaintiffs is less than $75,000.00. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bad Faith) 21. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 22. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim with State Farm. 23. State Farm sent an adjuster to inspect the Property on or about June 15, 2025. 24. State Farm then wrote an estimate for the replacement of approximately six (6) squares of shingles on a fifty (50) square roof, as well as six (6) individual shingles, some gutters, downspouts and wood fencing, which resulted in a net payment to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,461.27. 25. Plaintiffs’ contractor inspected the Property multiple times and noted significantly more damage to the Property which was unaccounted for by the State Farm adjuster, including a leak which was causing additional damage. 26. Plaintiffs’ contractor contacted State Farm with documentation of the damage and requested a reinspection due to the need for a total roof replacement. 27. On October 21, 2025, State Farm sent an Engineer to inspect the Plaintiffs’ Property. 28. On December 8, 2025, State Farm finally provided Plaintiffs with the engineer’s report, which was dated November 17, 2025. The report resulted in no change to State Farm’s estimate and simply bolstered State Farm’s prior handling of Plaintiffs’ Claim. 29. State Farm’s adjuster called Plaintiffs and stated that while there was evidence of wind damage on their Property, that wind damage did not occur during the April 2, 2025, tornado. 30. On December 17, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a partial proof of loss pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629 based on their contractor’s estimate. 31. On January 6, 2026, State Farm acknowledged receipt of the document but refused to accept or consider it as it was not received within sixty (60) days of the loss per State Farm’s Policy, despite State Farm’s delay in providing a decision regarding the Claim, State Farm not requesting Plaintiffs provide a proof of loss, and Plaintiffs submitting the proof of loss pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629. 32. The acts and omissions of Defendant were in direct breach of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insureds, Plaintiffs, and done for Defendant’s own financial benefit. 33. Defendant intentionally underpaid, delayed, and failed to investigate Plaintiffs’ claim. The conduct of the Defendant, in the lack of investigation, evaluation, and payment of Plaintiffs’ claim was unreasonable, outside of insurance industry standards, and constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing resulting in the wrongful and bad faith denial of Plaintiffs’ claim for which extra-contractual damages are hereby sought. DAMAGES 34. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 35. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer mental anguish and suffering, anxiety, embarrassment, and loss of reputation in an amount to be determined. 36. Defendant’s conduct with respect to Plaintiffs’ Claim constitutes a bad faith breach of contract, for which punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1 due to the wrongful, willful, and intentional conduct of the Defendant which was in reckless disregard of the rights of its insureds, Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs move for a finding by the Court that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company breached its contractual duty to pay for storm damages under the valid Policy; that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing; that Plaintiffs should be awarded a sum not less than $32,000.77 in actual damages; a sum for an amount less than $75,000.00 for consequential damages as a result of Defendant’s breaches; sum for an amount less than $75,000.00 for punitive damages; that an award of attorney fees, costs of litigation and interest is proper pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629, 12 O.S. §§ 936, 940 & 942, and Oklahoma common law; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable under the circumstances, all damages totaling less than $75,000.00. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully Submitted, ______________________________ Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818 HOLBROOK LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 4815 S. Harvard Ave., Ste 285 Tulsa, OK 74135 P: (918) 373-9394 F: (918) 539-0269 E: [email protected] Counsel for the Plaintiffs