CJ-2026-953 - Wound Care of Tulsa, P.C. v. Bracken Insurance & Financial Services Inc. d/b/a Bracken Insurance Agency

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: most of us don’t lose sleep over retroactive dates on insurance policies. We’re too busy worrying about rent, student loans, or why our Wi-Fi cuts out during the one emotional scene in the show. But in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a retroactive date has become the star of a legal drama so absurdly high-stakes that it could’ve been written by the same people who brought you Succession — if Logan Roy had been a wound care clinic suing his insurance broker over a paperwork snafu that left him hanging out to dry in a malpractice suit.

Meet Wound Care of Tulsa, P.C., a medical clinic that treats chronic wounds — you know, the kind that won’t heal no matter how many ointments you slap on them. They’re not running a shady back-alley operation; they’re a legitimate professional corporation with doctors, patients, and presumably, a very well-stocked supply of gauze. And like any smart medical practice, they didn’t go bare into the litigation wilderness. They hired Bracken Insurance & Financial Services Inc., a local agency run by Robert Bracken II, with Shane Weber as one of the agents on the case, to make sure they were covered — properly covered — against malpractice claims. Because in medicine, even the tiniest oversight can turn into a five-alarm legal fire.

And guess what? It did.

Here’s how the dominoes fell. From 2017 to 2019, Bracken Insurance helped Wound Care of Tulsa secure a series of professional liability policies — the kind that kicks in when a patient sues over medical errors. These aren’t your standard car insurance policies. They’re “claims-made” policies, which means two things must be true: the claim has to be filed during the policy period, and the alleged injury has to have happened on or after the policy’s retroactive date. Think of the retroactive date like a time machine setting: if the injury happened before that date, the policy says, “Not my problem.”

For years, everything was fine. The 2017 and 2018 policies both had a retroactive date of September 10, 2007 — over a decade of coverage. That meant any claim arising from care provided since 2007 could be covered, as long as it was reported during the active policy period. That’s a big deal. It’s like having a legal umbrella that stretches way back, shielding the clinic from old ghosts.

But then came 2019. Bracken Insurance secured a new policy — Policy No. GHPL-38481-190624 — with a retroactive date of June 24, 2019, the same as the policy’s start date. No more decade-long protection. Just a clean slate. And here’s the kicker: Wound Care of Tulsa says they never asked for this change. They didn’t sign off on it. They didn’t even know it happened. Worse, Bracken didn’t secure “tail coverage” — a special extension that would’ve preserved the old retroactive date from the previous policy. That’s like canceling your old phone plan without porting your number and then being shocked when you can’t call your mom.

The next year, the same mistake was repeated with a policy from Kinsale Insurance Company — again, retroactive date: June 24, 2019. Again, no tail coverage. Again, no heads-up to the clinic.

Then, in September 2020, the lawsuit dropped. Michael and Cathy Eslick filed a malpractice claim over treatment provided by PA Bill Huynh — an employee of Wound Care of Tulsa — in November 2018. That date matters. November 2018 is before June 24, 2019. Way before. But it is after September 10, 2007. So if the old retroactive date had stayed in place? Covered. But because of the change — a change the clinic says it never approved — both the Lloyd’s of London and Kinsale policies said the same thing: “Nope. Not covered.”

No coverage means no defense paid for by the insurer. No lawyers sent by the insurance company. No safety net. So Wound Care of Tulsa had to hire its own attorneys — expensive ones — to defend both the clinic and PA Huynh in the malpractice suit. And now, they’re on the hook for all of it: legal fees, court costs, the emotional toll of fighting a battle they thought their insurance would handle. Their assets are “completely exposed,” the filing says. One bad verdict, and the clinic could be wiped out.

So why are they suing? Three big reasons, spelled out in legalese but simple in spirit. First, breach of contract: You were hired to get us the right insurance. You didn’t. You took our money and gave us a policy that left us vulnerable. Second, negligence in procuring insurance: You’re supposed to know this stuff. You’re the expert. You messed up by failing to get tail coverage or flag the retroactive date change. Third, breach of fiduciary duty: We trusted you. We gave you sensitive info, relied on your advice, and you let us walk off a cliff without saying a word.

Now, the filing doesn’t specify an exact dollar amount — which is weird, because lawsuits usually do. But we can guess: legal defense in a medical malpractice case isn’t cheap. We’re talking tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, in attorney fees alone. And that’s before any potential settlement or judgment in the underlying case. So when Wound Care of Tulsa says they want “economic damages, consequential damages, legal fees, and costs,” they’re not asking for pocket change. They’re asking to be made whole for a mistake that should’ve been preventable.

And here’s the most delicious part: the first time they even knew about the retroactive date change was when Kinsale Insurance denied the claim in October 2020. Let that sink in. For over a year, they were operating under the belief they were protected — because their insurance broker told them they were protected — only to find out, mid-lawsuit, that the protection never existed. That’s not just a paperwork error. That’s a failure of communication so catastrophic it borders on professional malpractice itself.

Now, full disclosure: we’re entertainers, not lawyers. We don’t know what Bracken Insurance’s defense will be. Maybe they’ll say the clinic approved the change. Maybe there’s an email somewhere that says, “Yeah, June 24, 2019 is fine.” Maybe Shane Weber wrote it down in invisible ink. But based on what’s in this filing, this isn’t a case about a small oversight. It’s about a fundamental breakdown in what insurance brokers are supposed to do: protect their clients.

The retroactive date isn’t some obscure technicality. It’s the difference between “We’ve got your back” and “Good luck, sucker.” And if Wound Care of Tulsa did rely on Bracken’s expertise — as any reasonable client would — then this whole mess is a textbook example of how one small, silent change in a policy can unravel years of careful risk management.

So who are we rooting for? The little guy — even if the little guy is a professional corporation with a fancy insurance policy. Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about wound care. It’s about trust. And if you can’t trust your insurance broker to get the dates right, what can you trust them to do?

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jennifer R. Annis

GableGotwals

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Wound Care of Tulsa, P.C. business
Rep: Jennifer R. Annis of GableGotwals

Defendants

Bracken Insurance & Financial Services Inc. d/b/a Bracken Insurance Agency business
Robert Bracken II individual
Shane Weber individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract
2	Negligence Procurement of Insurance
3	Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Petition Text

1,634 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA WOUND CARE OF TULSA, P.C., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) BRACKEN INSURANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. d/b/a BRACKEN INSURANCE AGENCY, ROBERT BRACKEN II, and SHANE WEBER, ) Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff Wound Care of Tulsa, P.C., by and through its attorney of record, Jennifer R. Annis of the law firm of GableGotwals, and states the following allegations and causes of action against Defendants: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a professional corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Bracken Insurance & Financial Services Inc. d/b/a Bracken Insurance Agency is a domestic for profit business corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business in Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Robert Bracken II is the owner and President of Defendant Bracken Insurance Agency. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Shane Weber was an employee and agent of Bracken Insurance Agency. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations of this Petition. 6. The facts which give rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 7. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action. 8. Venue is proper in Tulsa County. FACTS 9. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations of this Petition. 10. Defendant Bracken Insurance Agency is an Independent Insurance Agency representing many different companies for their clients’ insurance needs. 11. Defendant Bracken Insurance Agency provides an assessment of their clients’ needs and chooses the best carrier for their clients’ needs. 12. In 2017, Defendants procured an insurance policy, Policy No. I001978, for Plaintiff from Capson Physicians Insurance for the policy period December 22, 2017 to December 22, 2018 with a retroactive date of September 10, 2007. 13. In 2018, Defendants procured a new insurance policy, Policy No. GHPL-24994-180831, for Plaintiff from Ascot Bermuda Syndicate 1414 at Lloyd’s of London for the policy period August 31, 2018 to August 31, 2019 with a retroactive date of September 10, 2007. 14. In 2019, Defendants procured a new insurance policy, Policy No. GHPL-38481-190624, for Plaintiff from Ascot Bermuda Syndicate 1414 at Lloyd’s of London for the policy period June 24, 2019 to June 24, 2020, but this time the retroactive date was listed as the beginning date of the policy period – June 24, 2019. 15. Plaintiff never requested or approved the retroactive date to be changed from September 10, 2007 to June 24, 2019 for Policy No. GHPL-38481-190624. 16. Defendants failed to offer or obtain tail coverage for Policy No. GHPL-24994-180831 to cover the gap in coverage created by obtaining a policy with the incorrect retroactive date on Policy No. GHPL-38481-190624. 17. In 2020, Defendants procured a new insurance policy, Policy No. 0100118719-0, for Plaintiff from Kinsale Insurance Company for the policy period June 24, 2020 to June 24, 2021 with the same retroactive date as the previous policy – June 24, 2019. The Kinsale Insurance Company policy expressly does not apply to injuries which occur prior to the applicable retroactive date of June 24, 2019. 18. Plaintiff never requested or approved the retroactive date to be changed from September 10, 2007 to June 24, 2019 for the Kinsale Insurance Company insurance policy. 19. All policies procured by Defendants are “claims made” policies, meaning the claim must be made during the policy period, but the injury must have occurred on, or subsequent to, the retroactive date of the policy. 20. On September 10, 2020, Michael D. Eslick and Cathy Eslick filed a Petition against Bill Huynh, P.A. regarding care provided by P.A. Huynh to Michael Eslick in November of 2018 (the “Underlying Lawsuit”). See CJ-2020-02791 In the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 21. On November 20, 2020, Wound Care Center of Tulsa, P.C. was added as a party to the Underlying Lawsuit. See CJ-2020-02791 In the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 22. Wound Care Center of Tulsa, P.C., on behalf of its employee, Bill Huynh, P.A., submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, regarding the Underlying Lawsuit. 23. On February 16, 2021, Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London issued a letter explaining the denial of coverage for PA Huynh’s claim. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London did not appoint counsel to defend PA Huynh in the Underlying Lawsuit as there was no coverage based on the cancellation of Policy No. GHPL-24994-180831 (which had the retroactive date of September 10, 2007) and the retroactive coverage date of June 24, 2019 for Policy No. GHPL-38481-190624. 24. Wound Care Center of Tulsa, P.C. submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, Kinsale Insurance Company, regarding the Underlying Lawsuit. 25. On October 26, 2020, Kinsale Insurance denied coverage for Wound Care Center of Tulsa, P.C.’s claim. As a result, Kinsale did not appoint counsel to defend Wound Care Center of Tulsa, P.C. in the Underlying Lawsuit as there was no coverage based on the retroactive coverage date. 26. That denial from Kinsale Insurance was the first notice Plaintiff had that the retroactive date on the policy was June 24, 2019 instead of September 10, 2007. 27. As a result, Plaintiff independently retained counsel for both its employee, PA Huynh, and for Wound Care of Tulsa in the Underlying Lawsuit. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur significant expenses in paying for those legal fees and costs. 28. Due to the lack of professional liability insurance coverage for the Underlying Lawsuit, the assets of both Plaintiff and its employee, PA Huynh, are completely exposed. 29. Plaintiff engaged Defendants to procure professional liability insurance coverage with a retroactive date of September 10, 2007. A policy with that retroactive date would pay for the cost of defending a professional liability lawsuit brought against Plaintiff and the other named insureds, in addition to any damages sustained in the lawsuit up to the applicable policy limits for incidents occurring from September 10, 2007 to the policy period. Plaintiff asserts Defendants failed to do so. 30. Defendants represented that they had expertise in evaluating and procuring professional liability insurance coverage. 31. Defendants represented that they had expertise in procuring the retroactive date that was necessary to provide proper coverage for Plaintiff and the additional named insureds, including Bill Huynh, P.A. 32. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants’ representations and expertise to properly procure the necessary coverage, including the previously utilized retroactive date of September 10, 2007. 33. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s procurement of insurance coverage that would have covered the underlying claim, Defendant Robert Bracken II was an agent of the Bracken Insurance Agency. 34. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s procurement of insurance coverage that would have covered the underlying claim, Defendant Shane Weber was an agent or employee of the Bracken Insurance Agency. 35. Plaintiff relied on Defendants to procure adequate insurance that protected them against any potential gaps in coverage. 36. Defendants represented to Plaintiff that they had procured adequate insurance coverage. 37. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that they had adequate professional liability insurance and that there were no gaps between policy periods and retroactive dates of coverage. 38. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants to review all policies and endorsements to ensure they provided adequate protection for the company and its employees and to alert and protect against any gaps in coverage or other unexpected limits on coverage. COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs. 40. Plaintiff engaged and relied on Defendants to procure professional liability insurance for Plaintiff and the additional named insureds. 41. Defendants received compensation for evaluating and procuring insurance coverage for Plaintiff. 42. Plaintiff paid premiums for insurance coverage, fulfilling the essential terms of the contract. 43. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to act in good faith and exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in the procurement of insurance for Plaintiff and in notifying Plaintiff of insurance coverage retroactive dates. 44. Defendants had a duty to inform Plaintiff of all coverages, benefits, limitations, exclusions, and gaps in the coverage procured. 45. Defendants breached their agreement to procure insurance coverage for Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to Plaintiff, including the costs incurred in bringing this action. COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs. 47. Defendants owed duties to Plaintiff to fairly and accurately represent the coverage provided under the policies and any “gaps” in coverage. 48. Defendants had a duty to evaluate and procure adequate insurance coverage with the retroactive dates requested by Plaintiff. 49. Defendants had a duty to inform Plaintiff of all coverages, benefits, limitations, and exclusions in the coverage procured. 50. Defendants had a duty to identify and disclose potential gaps in insurance coverage. 51. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by, among other things: a. Failing to evaluate and obtain adequate insurance coverage; b. Failing to protect against “gaps” in insurance coverage; c. Failing to procure coverage with the retroactive dates requested; 52. Defendants’ breaches proximately caused damage to Plaintiff. COUNT III – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Petition. 54. There was a fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff in that Plaintiff entrusted Defendants with detailed and confidential information, and relied upon Defendants to evaluate, procure, and issue adequate insurance coverage in the amount requested to provide the coverage requested. 55. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by, among other things: a. Failing to evaluate and obtain appropriate professional liability insurance coverage; b. Failing to include the proper retroactive date in Plaintiff’s insurance coverage; c. Failing to protect against “gaps” in the professional liability insurance coverage; d. Failing to obtain adequate insurance coverage to cover a medical malpractice claim made against Plaintiff for an incident occurring in November of 2018. 56. Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duty proximately caused damage to Plaintiff. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter judgment against Defendants on Plaintiff's claims and award Plaintiff its economic damages, consequential damages, legal fees and costs incurred in bringing this action, and to award Plaintiff all other relief deemed just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, __________________________ Jennifer R. Annis, OBA #17741 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Wound Care of Tulsa, P.C. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED