CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2024-7075

Julie Ward v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filed: Nov 1, 2024
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: Julie and Ryan Ward are suing State Farm — yes, that State Farm, the one with the talking beagle and the jingle stuck in your head since 2005 — for $22,661 because the insurance giant allegedly looked at their damaged house, shrugged, and said, “Nah, we’re good.” And now, in a twist that feels more like a TikTok drama than a courtroom battle, the Wards want their money, their dignity, and a jury to tell State Farm to stop playing games. Welcome to CrazyCivilCourt, where the stakes are real, the paperwork is endless, and the real victim is probably just the homeowner’s sanity.

So who are these people? Meet Julie and Ryan Ward — a married couple living in Guthrie, Oklahoma, which, for the record, is not a fictional town from a Hallmark movie, though it does sound like one. They own a house on Penny Circle (yes, Penny Circle — as in “penny for your thoughts?” Coincidence? Probably). Like most responsible adults who’d rather not sleep under a tarp during a thunderstorm, they paid for homeowner’s insurance. Specifically, they had a policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company — Policy No. 36BXL6142, because nothing says “peace of mind” like a string of letters and numbers that could double as a Wi-Fi password. They paid their premiums like good little policyholders, trusting that if something went sideways — say, a tree fell, a pipe burst, or Oklahoma’s famously moody weather threw a tantrum — State Farm would be there. Spoiler: they weren’t. At least, not in the way the Wards expected.

Here’s what went down, according to the filing: sometime in 2024, their property suffered what they describe as an “accidental direct physical loss.” That’s legalese for “something broke, and it wasn’t on purpose.” State Farm assigned the incident Claim No. 3667G024P — because nothing makes you feel more validated than being reduced to a barcode — and set the official date of loss as May 6, 2024. Whether it was hail damage, wind, water, or a rogue armadillo with a grudge, the filing doesn’t say. But whatever it was, it was bad enough that the Wards said, “Hey, we have insurance for this,” and filed a claim. And that’s when the fun began.

State Farm, allegedly, did what insurance companies are known to do in these situations: they looked at the damage, did some math nobody understands, and came back with a number that was less than what the Wards say it would cost to actually fix their home. The Wards, being neither fools nor magicians, disagreed. They say they proved the damage was covered under their policy — which, again, they paid for — and that State Farm couldn’t point to any clause that actually excluded this kind of loss. In other words, they’re claiming State Farm had no real reason to lowball them except, perhaps, the universal corporate strategy of “keep the money, avoid the payout.” And so, after presumably exhausting the customer service hotline, the appeals process, and maybe even sending a strongly worded email with the subject line “RE: RE: RE: RE: STILL WAITING,” the Wards did what any wronged American might do: they lawyered up and sued.

Now, let’s talk about why they’re in court. The legal claim here is breach of contract — which, in plain English, means: “We had a deal, you didn’t hold up your end, and now I want what’s mine.” The Wards aren’t accusing State Farm of arson or identity theft. They’re saying, “We paid you every month. You promised to cover certain types of damage. The damage happened. You owe us the money to fix it.” That’s it. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations — just a straightforward, “You broke the agreement, and now we want compensation.” And under Oklahoma law, if an insurance company refuses to pay a valid claim without justification, that’s not just annoying — it’s potentially a legal violation. The Wards are also leaving the door open to amend their claims later, which is lawyer-speak for “we might come back with more receipts if you keep playing dumb.”

So what do they want? $22,661. That’s not chump change — it’s enough to buy a used car, make a down payment on a house (in some parts of the country), or fund a very luxurious backyard renovation. For a roof repair or structural damage, it might not even be excessive. But is it a lot in the grand scheme of insurance claims? Not really. This isn’t a class-action lawsuit over systemic fraud. It’s not even six figures. It’s a very specific, very precise amount — the kind of number that suggests someone got actual estimates from contractors, added tax, and maybe threw in a few extra bucks for emotional distress (though they’re not officially claiming that). The Wards aren’t asking for punitive damages — no “punish them for being evil” money. They’re not asking for a lifetime supply of State Farm swag. They just want to be made whole again, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs, as allowed by law. And yes — they want a jury trial. Which means, at some point, a group of Oklahoma citizens will have to sit in a courtroom and decide whether State Farm stiffed a couple from Guthrie over a house on Penny Circle. Popcorn, anyone?

Our take? Look, we’re not here to defend insurance companies — they’ve spent decades earning our collective side-eye. But we’re also not shocked that a claim dispute ended up in court. That’s kind of how this system works: you ask for money, they offer less, you argue, they drag their feet, and eventually someone files a petition. The real absurdity here isn’t that the Wards sued — it’s that they had to. They paid for protection, something went wrong, and instead of a quick resolution, they got bureaucracy, claim numbers, and legal jargon. The fact that they need a jury to tell an insurance company to honor its own contract is less “shocking scandal” and more “Tuesday.” But still — we’re rooting for the Wards. Not because we hate State Farm (Rover, we still love you), but because the idea that you’d have to sue your insurer just to fix your roof in 2024 is peak modern absurdity. If they win, great. If they lose, at least they’ll have a story — and possibly a viral TikTok about the time they took on a billion-dollar company over $22,661 and a promise written in fine print. Either way, we’ll be watching. With popcorn. And our homeowner’s policy on speed dial.

Case Overview

$22,661 Demand Jury Trial Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$22,661 Monetary
Plaintiffs
  • Julie Ward individual
    Rep: Ben D. Baker, OBA No. 21475; Laurie Koller, OBA #16857
  • Ryan Ward individual
    Rep: Ben D. Baker, OBA No. 21475; Laurie Koller, OBA #16857
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Contract Plaintiffs claim Defendant failed to pay benefits owed under an insurance contract

Petition Text

761 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JULIE WARD and RYAN WARD, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. RICK WARREN COURT CLERK NOV -1 2024 Case No. CJ - 2024 - 7075 Judge __________________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Julie and Ryan Ward, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and in support of their action against Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” and/or “State Farm”) state and allege as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. 2. Defendant is a foreign insurance company that was not incorporated in Oklahoma and does not have its principal place of business in Oklahoma. 3. Defendant has appointed the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner as its agent to receive service of legal process. 4. The Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner is located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. This breach of contract action arose in whole or in part in Logan County, Oklahoma. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Plaintiffs and Defendant are parties to an insurance contract identified by Defendant as Policy No. 36BXL6142 (the “Contract”). 7. Defendant drafted the Contract. 8. Defendant received consideration from Plaintiffs in the form of Plaintiffs’ payment of premiums to Defendant 9. In exchange for Defendant’s receipt of consideration in the form of premiums paid to it by Plaintiffs, Defendant promised to provide, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract and Oklahoma law, coverage for Plaintiffs’ property located 228 Penny Cir, Guthrie, OK 73044. 10. The Contract was in effect from November 14, 2023 to November 14, 2024. 11. Plaintiffs reported to Defendant that their property had sustained accidental direct physical loss during the time the Contract was in effect. 12. Defendant assigned Plaintiffs’ report Claim No. 3667G024P (the “Claim”). 13. Defendant assigned May 6, 2024, as the date of loss for the Claim. 14. Plaintiffs dispute Defendant’s determination of the benefits it owed them under the Contract for their Claim. BREACH OF CONTRACT 15. Plaintiffs assert and allege that (a) prior to filing this lawsuit they met their burden of demonstrating the accidental direct physical loss to their property is covered under the Contract; (b) prior to the filing of this lawsuit Defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating any of the accidental direct physical loss to Plaintiff’s property is excluded from coverage; (c) Defendant has breached the Contract by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed to them under the Contract necessitated by the covered accidental direct physical loss to Plaintiffs’ property. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND/CONFORM 16. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their pleading and/or to amend the claims set forth in their pleading and their demand for relief sought to conform to the evidence discovered and/or developed through litigation. DEMAND FOR RELIEF 17. Plaintiffs assert and allege that due to Defendant's breach of the Contract they have suffered detriment, they are entitled to recover from Defendant the amount of money that is needed to put them in as good a position as they would have been in had Defendant not breached the Contract, and that Defendant is responsible to compensate Plaintiffs for all reasonably foreseeable detriment proximately caused by its breach of Contract. 18. Plaintiffs assert and allege Defendant has breached the Contract by failing to pay them the amounts needed to repair/replace the covered accidental direct physical loss to their property in an amount of no less than $22,661.00. 19. Plaintiffs assert and allege their right to update the calculation of contractual damages closer in time to the trial of this matter to reflect any changes in pricing and assert and allege that they are entitled to recover the costs of any such changes as consequential damages incurred due to Defendant's breach of the Contract. 20. Plaintiffs assert and allege that in addition to the damages listed above, they are entitled to recovery of consequential damages. 21. Plaintiffs assert and allege that in addition to the damages listed above, they are entitled to recovery of interest, attorney fees, and costs as permitted and/or mandated by Oklahoma law. 22. The total amount of damages/relief sought by Plaintiffs does not exceed the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: October 31, 2024 [signature] Ben D. Baker, OBA No. 21475 [email protected] Levi B. Baker, OBA No. 35545 [email protected] Dawn M. Goeres, OBA No. 21475 [email protected] Red Dirt Legal, PLLC 10334 Greenbriar Parkway Oklahoma City, OK 73159 Telephone: (405) 527-8001 Facsimile: (405) 527-1539 and Laurie Koller, OBA #16857 [email protected] Red Dirt Legal, PLLC 2504 E. 21st St., Ste B Tulsa, OK 74114 Telephone: (918) 771-2968 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.