KENNY COX and JO COX v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BLACKIE GIBSON, BLACKIE GIBSON STATE FARM INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF WAGONER COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA KENNY COX and JO COX, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, BLACKIE GIBSON, individually, and BLACKIE GIBSON STATE FARM INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PETITION I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Kenny and Jo Cox ("Plaintiffs") are, and were at all times relevant herein, residents of Broken Arrow, Wagoner County, Oklahoma. 2. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. 3. Blackie Gibson is believed to be a resident of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. 4. Blackie Gibson Insurance Agency, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation that operates as a captive State Farm agency in Tulsa County located at 1389 N Aspen Ave, Broken Arrow, OK 74012. 5. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper with this Court because the causes of action arise in common law negligence actions against the Defendants. 6. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 134, 137 and 139. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 4, above, and further allege as follows: 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and action as Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 4, above, and further allege as follows: 8. Plaintiffs own and reside in a home located at 1403 N. 6th Street in Broken Arrow, Wagoner County, Oklahoma ("Property"). 9. Plaintiffs previously purchased a homeowner’s policy to insure them, the Property and contents within the Property from certain losses, including fire. The policy was issued by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"), identified as policy no. 36-GC-4308 ("Policy"). 10. Plaintiffs purchased the Policy from Blackie Gibson and Blackie Gibson State Farm Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively "Agent"). At the time of this purchase, Blackie Gibson and his company were agents and/or ostensible agents of State Farm. 11. The Policy was in full force and effect at all time material to the allegations stated in this Petition. 12. Plaintiffs relied on Agent for advice on the type of insurance needed to insure their home, themselves and their home’s contents from future loss. 13. The Policy purported to be a replacement cost policy and provide coverage to replace the Property in the event of a loss. 14. Plaintiffs had paid all premiums to State Farm due under the Policy as well as prior policies sold to Plaintiffs for homeowner coverage. 15. On May 13, 2205, a fire occurred at the Property. 16. As a result of the fire, the Property sustained devastating physical damage to the structure of the home and destruction of personal property in and near the Property. 17. As a result of the fire, the Property sustained devastating smoke damage to the structure of the home and to personal property in and near the Property. 18. As a result of efforts to extinguish the fire, the Property sustained damage to the structure of the home and destruction of personal property in and near the Property. 19. As a direct result of the fire, Plaintiffs were without reasonable and safe shelter. 20. As a direct result of the fire, Plaintiffs suffered loss of personal property. 21. As a direct result of the fire, Plaintiffs incurred financial loss. 22. At the time of the fire, Jo Cox was a survivor multiple myeloma and had a compromised immune system. 23. The fire damage was covered under the terms of the insurance policy. 24. Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted a claim to State Farm for the damages caused by the fire event, asking State Farm, to pay benefits under the Policy. 25. Plaintiffs have complied with every single condition precedent to recovery under the Policy. 26. State Farm opened a claim, claim number 36-84R3-18D ("Claim"), to investigate Plaintiffs' fire loss and evaluate for purposes of paying benefits to Plaintiffs. 27. Plaintiffs provided all documentation and information requested by State Farm in connection with the Claim. 28. State Farm investigated the fire and concluded that the fire was a covered loss under the Policy. 29. Initially, State Farm advised Plaintiffs their home was a total loss and would not be repaired. Consequently, State Farm told Plaintiffs there was no reason to cover the home or make immediate repairs to minimize further loss to the home. 30. Despite the Policy’s coverages and the reasonably clear amount of loss to Plaintiffs’ home, that being a total loss, State Farm later changed its opinion and advised Plaintiffs’ their home could actually be repaired and returned to a habitable condition. 31. State Farm relied on the opinion of Sparks Construction and its owner, Brett Neil, who advised his company could adequately repair the home and make it habitable. 32. State Farm revised its initial evaluation of the Claim to match Sparks Construction opinions, which wholly undervalued the damages to the Property. 33. Plaintiffs independently hired Knox Inspection Services Inc. to perform a structural inspection of the Property and provide an opinion as to overall damage caused by the fire. 34. Knox Inspection Services Inc. determined the Property to be a total loss. 35. State Farm ignored the conclusions of Knox Inspection Services Inc. 36. Plaintiffs advised State Farm that attempting to remediate the fire and smoke damage to their home, rather than replace the damaged structure, would cause a serious health risk to Jo Cox due to her compromised immune system. State Farm ignored those concerns in its investigation and evaluation of the Claim. 37. As of the filing of this Petition, State Farm has paid, in part, benefits under the Policy for immediate needs such a temporary shelter. 38. As of the filing of this Petition, State Farm has not fully paid all benefits owed to Plaintiffs under the Policy. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT (Against Defendant State Farm) Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 38, above, and further allege as follows: 39. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to State Farm of the fire and subsequent damages arising from the fire. 40. The May 13, 2025 fire was a covered loss under the Policy entitling Plaintiffs to contractual benefits under the Policy. 41. Plaintiffs complied in all material ways with the terms and conditions of the Policy. 42. State Farm has breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of Policy by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed to them. 43. State Farm has breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of Policy by underpaying benefits owed to Plaintiffs under the Policy. 44. As a direct result of State Farm’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, but not limited to, financial losses and emotional distress. COUNT II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (Against Defendant State Farm) Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 44, above, and further allege as follows: 45. At all relevant times hereto, State Farm owed Plaintiffs a duty of good faith and fair dealing in investigating and evaluating the Claim to pay benefits owed to Plaintiffs. 46. Plaintiff Jo Cox disclosed to State Farm that she is a survivor of multiple myeloma and that the repairs suggested by State Farm would still deem the house unhabitable due to her condition and compromised immune system. 47. State Farm was aware of this and made statements that her health conditions would not be considered. 48. State Farm failed to conduct a proper and fair investigation. 49. State Farm lacked a reasonable basis to withhold full benefits once its own investigation (adjusters/engineers) concluded the home was a total loss. 50. State Farm knew or should have known it lacked a reasonable basis because it possessed internal information supporting total loss and still adopted a contrary outcome-driven estimate. 51. Adopting the contrary outcome-driven estimate ultimately saved State Farm money and negatively impacted the Plaintiffs. 52. State Farm’s estimate revisions were driven by the vendor opinion rather than policy obligations and objective damage findings. 53. State Farm’s stance to repair the house given this fact is unreasonable and unjustified under the circumstances cited in the above paragraphs. 54. State Farm has failed to pay the full and fair amount of benefits owed under the Policy because of the following acts and/or omissions: a. Wrongfully and purposefully withholding payment due to an improper evaluation of the Claim; and b. Failing to perform an objective and fair investigation of the Claim including all relevant and pertinent information. 55. State Farm has forced Plaintiffs to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy. 56. State Farm’s conduct, as described above, constitutes bad faith and is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and its underlying insurance contract between the parties. State Farm has no reasonable basis in its refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiffs the agreed replacement cost as per the Policy for damages caused by the fire damage to the Property. 57. Because of State Farm’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering that naturally results from such breach. 58. State Farm’s conduct, as alleged herein, was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and is sufficiently egregious in nature to warrant the imposition of punitive damages COUNT III: NEGLIGENCE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE (Against Agent) Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58, above, and further allege as follows: 59. At all material times hereto, Agent acted as State Farm’s agent and/or employee. State Farm is thereby vicariously liable for the Agent’s conduct. 60. In procuring the Policy, Agent had a duty to: a. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to procure full replacement cost coverage as the insured requested that meets the insured’s stated needs; a. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in undertaking the calculation of replacement cost for the insured; b. speak accurately and truthfully by informing Plaintiff of all full replacement cost coverages, advising Plaintiff of the benefits, risks, limitations and exclusions thereof, and perform a reasonable inspection of the Insured Property prior to procuring the full replacement cost coverage and thereafter upon renewal to ensure no changes to the Policy were necessary or required; and c. Disclose all material facts with respect to the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 61. Agent breached Agent’s duty owed to Plaintiffs by: a. Knowingly and purposefully procuring and renewing i. illusory full replacement cost coverage (in that all fortuitous losses are not covered under the Policy); ii. full replacement cost coverage deviating substantially and materially from that which Plaintiffs requested; iii. a Policy that did not accurately reflect the replacement cost of the Property (i.e., an amount that was 100% insurance to value as represented); iv. a policy that, as written, did not provide full replacement cost coverage to fully restore the Insured Property back to its pre-loss condition; b. Failing to i. follow and abide by State Farm’s underwriting policies/guidelines; ii. perform all necessary inspections of the Insured Property; iii. confirm the accuracy of the pre-filled information provided by State Farm’s replacement cost estimating tool; iv. disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured Property; v. verify whether its inherent representation to State Farm and Plaintiff that the Insured Property (including the roof) was in good condition was accurate; vi. procure and renew a policy that provided the requested full replacement cost coverage for all fortuitous losses; and vii. disclose all material facts of the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 62. Plaintiffs relied on Agent’s representations to their substantial detriment. 63. As a result of Agent’s conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 64. Agent’s conduct was intentional, willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of others and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. COUNT IV: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE MISREPRESENTATION (Against All Defendants) Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 64, above, and further allege as follows: 65. Defendants owed Plaintiff a legal and/or equitable duty to disclose all material facts that may arise out of their relationship as insurer and insured. Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc., 2013 OK 34, ¶17, 308 P.3d 1041. 66. Defendants owed specific duties to Plaintiff. These duties are encompassed in State Farm’s duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiffs, as well as specific duties Agent owed Plaintiffs—a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and skill in obtaining and accurately notifying of the nature and character of the insurance procured, the duty in undertaking the calculation of replacement cost for the insured to use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to do so, the duty to speak accurately and truthfully about the Policy’s coverages and benefits. 67. Defendants breached these duties by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiffs, including (but not limited to) the following: a. Agent misrepresented the procurement of the comprehensive full replacement cost coverage Plaintiffs requested. b. Defendants misrepresented that the Policy covered all fortuitous losses; and c. Defendants failed to disclose all material information to Plaintiffs about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics, its reliance on undisclosed definitions and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about State Farm’s handling of homeowners claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision. 68. Nevertheless, Defendants sold and renewed illusory full replacement cost coverage to Plaintiff knowing such statements were untrue. 69. As a result of both State Farm and Agent’s breach of duty, each gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiffs to substantial detriment and prejudice. These breaches of duty induced Plaintiffs to accept, purchase, and renew the State Farm replacement cost policy. 70. State Farm and Agent’s misrepresentations constitute constructive fraud. 71. At all relevant times, Agent was State Farm’s employee and/or agent. 72. As a result of the Defendants’ constructive fraud, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 73. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of the rights of others, and/or was grossly negligent, and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. I. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against Defendants, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Blackie Gibson and Blackie Gibson State Farm Insurance Agency, Inc., in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United State Code, in addition to punitive damages, judgment interest, costs, attorney fees, and all other relief available to Plaintiffs or otherwise just and equitable by this Court. Respectfully submitted, Matthew J. Woolslayer OBA#: 35448 Michael. P. Martin OBA#: 22225 Scott R. Jackson OBA #: 17502 Martin, Jean, Jackson, Martin & Peach 2200 S. Utica Place Ste. 575 Tulsa, Ok 74114 Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED