Clearcover Insurance Company v. Walker, Ferguson & Ferguson, an Oklahoma Professional Corporation

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CLEARCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign for profit corporation, Plaintiff, vs. WALKER, FERGUSON & FERGUSON, an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, d/b/a Walker, Ferguson, Ferguson & Derouen; CADEN S. RUSK, an individual; NICK C. LINHOLM, an individual; and GRANT M. SPENCER, an individual, Defendants. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 9, 2026 1:12 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case No Case Number CJ-2026-1073 ATTORNEY’S LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW the plaintiff, Clearcover Insurance Company, a foreign for profit corporation, by and through its attorney of record, George H. Brown of BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC, and for its causes of action against the defendants, Walker, Ferguson & Ferguson, an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, d/b/a Walker, Ferguson, Ferguson & Derouen, Caden S. Rusk, an individual, Nick C. Linholm, an individual, and Grant M. Spencer, an individual, Plaintiff alleges and states as follows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, Clearcover Insurance Company ("Plaintiff"), is a foreign for-profit insurance company incorporated in the State of Illinois and licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, the defendant, Walker, Ferguson & Ferguson, is an Oklahoma Professional Corporation, that does business as Walker, Ferguson, Ferguson & Derouen ("Law Firm"). The principal place of business of the Law Firm is 941 E. Britton Rd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma 73114. 3. Defendant, Caden S. Rusk ("Rusk"), is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Rusk is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Oklahoma. 4. Defendant, Nick C. Linholm ("Linholm"), is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Linholm is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Oklahoma. 5. Defendant, Grant M. Spencer ("Spencer" and together with Law Firm, Rusk and Linholm, the "Defendants") is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Spencer is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Oklahoma. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this particular controversy and personal jurisdiction over the parties herein. 7. Venue is proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, because: (a) the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; (b) the agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit was reached in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; (c) the principal place of business of the Law Firm is Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; and, upon information and belief (d) the individual defendants, Rusk, Linholm, and Spencer reside in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and/or routinely practice law in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 8. On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a third party, Brittany Shaw ("Shaw"), in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Case Number CJ-2025-235 (hereafter, the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit included, inter alia, claims against Plaintiff for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. 9. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Law Firm to represent Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. Defendants, Rusk, Linholm and Spencer, were employed by the Law Firm and entered their appearances as counsel of record for Plaintiff and/or worked on the Lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff. 10. During the Lawsuit, counsel for Shaw served Defendants with Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions (hereafter, the "Discovery Requests") in early March of 2025. Defendants sought two extensions from Shaw’s counsel to respond to the Discovery Requests. These requested extensions were granted by Shaw’s counsel. 11. Despite receiving two extensions of the deadline to respond to the Discovery Requests, Defendants failed to timely answer the Discovery Requests on behalf of Plaintiff. 12. Because Defendants failed to timely answer the Discovery Requests on behalf of Plaintiff, Shaw’s counsel prepared and filed a Motion to Compel on or about June 3, 2025. 13. Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading to the Motion to Compel on behalf of Plaintiff. 14. The Court in the Lawsuit thereafter granted Shaw’s Motion to Compel. The Court also entered an additional Order that deemed the Requests for Admissions “Admitted” for purposes of the Lawsuit. See copy of August 7, 2025 Order from the Lawsuit, attached as Exhibit 1. 15. The Requests for Admissions deemed “Admitted” by the Court in the Lawsuit were outcome determinative and legally establish, among other things, that Plaintiff failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Shaw’s claim, that Plaintiff violated Oklahoma law in evaluating Shaw’s claim, and that Plaintiff refused to promptly pay the undisputed portion of Shaw’s claim. See Exhibit 1. 16. Defendants failed to keep Plaintiff informed in the Lawsuit, failed to meet required deadlines in the Lawsuit, failed to properly docket responsive pleadings in the Lawsuit, failed to file responsive pleadings in the Lawsuit, and otherwise failed to adequately represent Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. III. THEORIES OF RECOVERY A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT) Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 17. Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with Defendants for Defendants to provide legal services and representation to Plaintiff. 18. Defendants breached the Agreement by, among other things, failing to keep Plaintiff informed, failing to meet required deadlines, failing to properly docket responsive pleadings, failing to file responsive pleadings, and otherwise failing to adequately represent Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. 19. As a result of Defendants’ breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff suffered actual and consequential damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for which Defendants are liable. Plaintiff is entitled to recover those damages, with statutory interest, via a money judgment against Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and in Plaintiff's favor on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for the following relief: a. Compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; b. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; c. Costs, including but not limited to court costs, expert fees, attorney's fees and expenses; and d. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances presented. B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE) Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every material allegation above as if fully herein set forth. 20. Defendants entered into an attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff wherein Defendants agreed to represent Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. 21. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to meet the skill and diligence that a reasonably careful attorney would have used such as missing deadlines and failing to respond to pleadings. 22. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff should be compensated by Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and in Plaintiff’s favor on Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for the following relief: a. Compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; b. Punitive damages; c. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; d. Costs, including but not limited to court costs, expert fees, attorney's fees and expenses; and e. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances presented. IV. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that it be awarded judgment against the Defendants as set forth above, including actual and compensatory damages, together with costs, pre and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and any other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, George H. Brown, OBA #18020 BROWN & FLESCH, PLLC 136 N.W. 10th St., Suite 201 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: (405) 548-1970 Facsimile: (405) 548-1986 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BRITTANY SHAW, vs. JACOB WILLIAMS; CLEARCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2025-235 COURT ORDER This matter comes before the Court for Hearing on this 7th day of August, 2025 pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3236, as Defendant Clearcover Insurance Company, Inc. failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission within the time allowed by law. As a result, the following matters are hereby deemed ADMITTED by operation of law: 1. Admit that Clearcover reduced the incurred medical expenses submitted by Plaintiff as part of the UM/UIM claim evaluation. ADMITTED 2. Admit that Clearcover did not provide Plaintiff with a written explanation for reducing her medical bills. ADMITTED 3. Admit that Clearcover maintains a practice, policy, or internal guideline that authorizes and instructs adjusters to reduce or reprice first-party medical expenses in UM/UIM claims. ADMITTED 4. Admit that Clearcover's claims adjusters are trained, instructed, or incentivized to reduce UM/UIM claim payouts, including reductions to medical expense evaluations. **ADMITTED** 5. Admit that Clearcover failed to conduct a full, fair, and reasonable investigation of Plaintiff's UM/UIM claim. **ADMITTED** 6. Admit that Clearcover violated Oklahoma law in the evaluation of the Plaintiff's UM/UIM claim. **ADMITTED** 7. Admit that Clearcover's evaluation and offer to resolve the Plaintiff's UM/UIM claim was inconsistent with Oklahoma's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (36 O.S. § 1250.1 et seq.). **ADMITTED** 8. Admit that Clearcover knowingly placed its financial interests ahead of Plaintiff's contractual rights. **ADMITTED** 9. Admit that Clearcover refused to promptly pay the undisputed portion of Plaintiff's UM/UIM claim. **ADMITTED** 10. Admit that Clearcover does not require its UM/UIM claims adjusters to undergo regular training on Oklahoma's first-party insurance laws and bad faith standards. **ADMITTED** 11. Admit that Clearcover does not require its UM/UIM claims adjusters to undergo regular training on Oklahoma first-party case law. ADMITTED IT IS SO ORDERED. JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT Bryce Johnson, OBA #11369 James J. Biscone, OBA #32354 JOHNSON & BISCONE, P.A. THE HIGHTOWER BUILDING 105 North Hudson, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel: (405) 232-6490 Fax: (405) 236-3676 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for the Plaintiff Thomas G. Ferguson, OBA #2878 Nick C. Linholm, OBA #14267 WALKER, FERGUSON, FERGUSON & DEROUEN 941 East Britton Rd Oklahoma City, OK 73114 Attorneys for Defendant Clearcover Insurance Company Blake Beeler, OBA #19636 7350 N Dobson Rd, Unit 103 Scottsdale, AZ 85256 Attorney for Defendant, Jacob Williams Bill Molinsky, OBA #12791 LYTLE, SOULÉ & FELTY, P.C. 119 N Robinson, Ste. 1200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Attorney for Defendant, Jacob Williams