CJ-2026-1017 - Earl Logan and Teresa Logan v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a married couple in Owasso, Oklahoma, had their roof shredded by a historic windstorm—only for State Farm to respond with the insurance equivalent of “Nah, that’s fine, just glue it back.” That’s not a typo. The insurance giant allegedly refused to pay for a full roof replacement after a documented windstorm, insisting that lifting shingles weren’t storm damage but “mechanical issues”—and that the fix was to trim mismatched shingles like a DIY craft project and void the manufacturer’s warranty in the process. Oh, and they never even sent someone to get on the roof to inspect it. That’s not customer service. That’s a hostage negotiation with a corporate algorithm.

Meet Earl and Teresa Logan: a regular Oklahoma couple who did everything right. They paid their premiums. They had a policy with State Farm. They lived in their home at 6954 East 83rd Street North, minding their business, probably grilling out on weekends and complaining about the humidity—until March 14, 2025, when a massive windstorm ripped through Tulsa County like a drunk tornado with a grudge. Winds were strong enough to qualify as “historically high,” which is not something meteorologists say lightly. And yes, the Logans’ roof took a beating. Shingles were missing. Others were lifted, curled, or “zipped” open like someone had unzipped a jacket mid-flight. It was, by any reasonable visual standard, damaged. So they did the responsible thing: they called State Farm. They filed a claim—number 36-82F7-25V, if you’re taking notes—and waited for the cavalry to arrive.

The cavalry came in the form of Hancock Claims Consultants, a third-party adjuster, who showed up on March 25. That’s 11 days post-storm, which already feels like a slow drip of corporate indifference, but fine. They looked around. Then, on April 3, with rain in the forecast and the interior of the house at risk, the Logans’ roofing contractor threw tarps over the worst areas to prevent water damage. Again: responsible homeowners doing damage control—literally. But State Farm? They took seven weeks to issue an estimate. Seven. Weeks. And when they finally did, on May 2, they claimed only 31 shingles were damaged—barely enough to cover the deductible. That’s like saying a car crash only dented one hubcap and refusing to total the vehicle.

Then came the clown show. On May 5, a State Farm rep grabbed a shingle sample—fine. On May 8, they emailed the Logans saying replacement shingles were “available at three local stores.” Cute. Except—spoiler alert—they weren’t. And even if they were, the manufacturer had discontinued that model, and their own guidelines explicitly prohibit mixing old and new shingles because it voids the warranty and compromises integrity. But State Farm wasn’t deterred. On May 16, an inspector named Johnny Cedor came out—but get this—he didn’t get on the roof. He looked from the ground. Then, on May 26, after the Logans’ contractor sent 54 photos showing widespread damage, Cedor dismissed it all. His reasoning? Lifted shingles aren’t wind damage. They’re “mechanical.” And the fix? Just “re-bond” them. As if a roof is a pair of sneakers you can slap some Gorilla Glue on and call it good.

The Logans’ contractor begged for reconsideration, pointing out that re-bonding isn’t a real fix after a windstorm—it’s a band-aid on a severed artery. But State Farm doubled down. They told the Logans to file a second claim, like this was a coupon they could reuse. Then, in October, their lawyer submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss for a full roof replacement. State Farm’s response? More emails. More denial. More claims that the shingles were “available” (they weren’t). More insistence that no one needed to climb on the roof. By December, the Logans’ attorney sent an NTS Report—actual technical evidence—proving the shingles were discontinued and mixing them would violate manufacturer specs. State Farm’s reply? “Just trim the new ones to match.” That’s not repair. That’s cosmetic fraud. And on January 16, 2026, Amy Irwin—the State Farm rep who apparently never met a roof she wouldn’t ignore—wrote: “The policy does not owe to maintain a warranty.” Let that sink in. The insurance company is saying: We don’t have to fix your house in a way that actually works. We just have to spend as little as possible.

So what’s the lawsuit about? Two things. First, breach of contract—a fancy way of saying: “You took our money. You promised to cover storm damage. The storm hit. The damage is real. Pay up.” The Logans aren’t asking for a yacht. They’re asking for what they’re owed: $20,257.97 to cover the actual cost of replacing their roof. But here’s the kicker—State Farm’s behavior wasn’t just stingy. It was allegedly bad faith. That’s the second claim: breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In plain English: insurers can’t act like cartoon villains when handling claims. They have to investigate fairly, pay what’s due, and not drag their feet to save a buck. The Logans allege State Farm did the opposite: ignored evidence, refused inspections, denied valid damage, and offered a “repair” that would’ve left the roof vulnerable and the warranty dead. That’s not just breach of contract—it’s a pattern of behavior that, under Oklahoma law, can trigger punitive damages. Meaning: not just reimbursement, but punishment.

And what do the Logans want? Officially, they’re demanding over $75,000. That number includes the actual repair costs, the mental anguish of dealing with a soulless claims machine, attorney fees, and yes—punitive damages. Is $75,000 a lot for a roof? Maybe. But context matters. A full roof replacement in Oklahoma runs between $10,000 and $25,000. So $75K isn’t about the shingles. It’s about the inconvenience, the stress, the gaslighting. It’s about a family spending months being told their house isn’t broken while rain threatens to ruin their ceilings. It’s about an insurance company that would rather argue semantics than send a trained inspector with a ladder. And let’s be real: State Farm is worth billions. This isn’t about money. It’s about accountability.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the “just trim the shingles” nonsense. It’s that no one from State Farm ever set foot on the roof. Not once. In over a year. They denied damage they never saw, based on photos they dismissed, using logic that contradicts roofing standards and common sense. This isn’t oversight. This is a system designed to wear people down—counting on homeowners to get tired, give up, and pay out of pocket. And sure, the Logans eventually did replace the roof—on February 11, 2026, at their own expense. But that’s not justice. That’s surrender.

We’re rooting for the Logans not because they want $75,000, but because they’re fighting for the principle: if you pay for insurance, you should get insurance. Not a magic trick where damage disappears because a corporate algorithm says so. This case isn’t just about a roof. It’s about what happens when a giant treats its customers like spreadsheet entries. And if the court awards punitive damages? Good. Let State Farm write that check. Maybe then they’ll remember: a roof isn’t just shingles. It’s shelter. It’s safety. And it’s not up for debate.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

Tulsa County District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Matthew J. Hicks

Aizenman Law Group, PLLC

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Earl Logan and Teresa Logan individual
Rep: Matthew J. Hicks and Caleb Salmon of Aizenman Law Group

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiffs allege State Farm breached their insurance contract by refusing to pay out for damages to their property
2	Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Plaintiffs allege State Farm acted in bad faith by underpaying and delaying their insurance claim

Petition Text

1,878 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA EARL LOGAN AND TERESA LOGAN, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. PETITION Plaintiffs Earl Logan and Teresa Logan ("Plaintiffs"), by and through counsel of record, Matthew Hicks and Caleb Salmon of AIZENMAN LAW GROUP, and for causes of action and claims for relief against Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"), allege and state as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs now, and at all relevant times hereto, own real property in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant State Farm is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY 3. This action is brought before this Court because it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution of the United States. 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 4. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 133 and 137, venue is proper in this Court because 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 policy number 36-GB-4741-6 ("Policy"). 7. Under the terms of the Policy, State Farm agreed to insure Plaintiffs against certain losses to Plaintiffs’ property at 6954 East 83rd Street North, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055 ("Property"). 8. On March 14, 2025, Oklahoma experienced historically high winds across the state, including in and around Tulsa County. On this date, while the above-referenced Policy was in full force and effect, Plaintiffs’ Property was damaged because of wind. 9. The Policy insured the Property against the type of loss and damage suffered. 10. Plaintiffs properly and timely reported the loss to State Farm; State Farm acknowledged the same and assigned claim number 36-82F7-25V to this loss ("Claim"). 11. All other conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to coverage and benefits under the Policy have been satisfied. 12. On or around March 25, 2025, State Farm sent Hancock Claims Consultants ("Hancock") to inspect the Property. 13. On or around April 3, 2025, to prevent interior damage to the Property, Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor installed tarps over portions of the roof with missing shingles. 14. On or around May 2, 2025, approximately seven weeks after the date of loss and over five weeks since Hancock’s inspection, State Farm representative Christine Gordon wrote an estimate to replace thirty-one (31) damaged shingles, which fell below Plaintiffs’ deductible. 15. On or around May 5, 2025, a State Farm representative obtained a shingle sample from the Property. 16. On or around May 8, 2025, State Farm sent an email to Plaintiffs alleging that replacement shingles were available at three local building supply stores. 17. On or around May 8, 2025, State Farm representative Cody Redrick sent a letter to Plaintiffs alleging that damage was below deductible. 18. On or around May 16, 2025, State Farm representative Johnny Cedor inspected the Property, but Mr. Cedor failed to get on the roof. 19. On or around May 21, 2025, Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor submitted fifty-four (54) photos to State Farm, evidencing significantly more damage than State Farm acknowledged in its estimate. 20. On or around May 26, 2025, despite failing to perform a proper inspection, State Farm representative Johnny Cedor arbitrarily rejected the additional damage photos, declaring that State Farm would not consider zippering and lifted shingles to be wind damage, and the damaged shingles could simply be re-bonded. 21. On or around May 27, 2025, Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor emailed State Farm pleading for reconsideration as the home experienced high winds and re-bonding would not be an efficient solution. 22. Subsequently, Plaintiffs sought multiple estimates from different roofing contractors but could not find anyone willing to perform the repairs in accordance with State Farm’s instructions. 23. On or around October 10, 2025, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs, submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss for the actual cash value of a full roof replacement after deductible, along with supporting documents. 24. On or around October 13, 2025, State Farm representative Kyle Kieta emailed the undersigned counsel claiming that zipperring and lifted shingles were mechanical damage and that “[a]n exact match to the shingle was found on 05/07/2025.” He also encouraged Plaintiffs to file a second claim. 25. On or around October 16, 2025, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to State Farm emphasizing that no one from State Farm had been on the subject roof, and that wind damage can surely exist without creased shingles, particularly on a roof already having acknowledged wind damage from a covered loss. 26. On or around October 22, 2025, State Farm representative Amy Irwin sent an email to the undersigned counsel reaffirming State Farm’s decision that the lifted shingles were not wind damage, again without anyone from State Farm inspecting the subject roof. Ms. Irwin again alleged that replacement shingles were available. 27. On or around October 24, 2025, State Farm representative Amy Irwin issued a partial denial letter for all additional damage claimed by Plaintiffs beyond the thirty-one (31) shingles listed in State Farm’s estimate. 28. On or around December 12, 2025, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to State Farm explaining Plaintiffs’ disagreement with State Farm’s decision, identifying that the photos showed no debris under the lifted shingles, which evidenced a recent event rather than long term mechanical issue. State Farm was also provided an NTS Report, which showed the subject shingles were no longer in production and also that the manufacturer’s instructions prohibit mixing discontinued shingles with new shingles. 29. On or around December 15, 2025, State Farm representative Amy Irwin sent an email to the undersigned counsel again alleging that the subject shingles were available locally. 30. On or around January 14, 2026, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to State Farm again affirming Plaintiffs’ position that the lifted shingles were in fact wind damage, but also that the subject shingles were no longer in production and the manufacturer prohibits mixing discontinued shingles with new shingles. 31. On or around January 16, 2026, State Farm representative Amy Irwin sent an email to the undersigned counsel instructing Plaintiffs to trim the new shingles to match discontinued shingles and that State Farm’s “policy does not owe to keep a warranty on the shingles.” 32. On or around January 16, 2026, the undersigned counsel sent a letter to State Farm explaining that voiding the shingle warranty certainly was not indemnification because such a repair would not place the Plaintiff's back in the same position as before the loss. Furthermore, Plaintiff's maintain that the lifted shingles were in fact wind damage from the covered loss. 33. On or around January 21, 2026, State Farm representative Amy Irwin affirmed State Farm’s position that trimming shingles was an appropriate repair, and [t]he policy does not owe to maintain a warranty.” 34. As of the date of this filing, State Farm has not been on the subject roof and has not inspected the lifted shingles. 35. On or around February 11, 2026, Plaintiffs replaced the roof of the Property at their own expense. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 37. The Policy constitutes a valid and binding contract between Plaintiffs and State Farm. 38. Plaintiffs timely paid State Farm the owed Policy premiums. 39. In exchange for the Policy premiums, State Farm agreed to provide Plaintiffs insurance coverage to the Property. 40. While the above-referenced Policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid, Plaintiffs suffered a covered loss. 41. Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted the Claim to State Farm for benefits under the Policy. 42. Plaintiffs have in all material ways fully performed under the Policy and have demanded that State Farm perform. 43. State Farm has refused to perform and materially breached the Policy. 44. 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 Policy issued by State Farm. 45. The acts and omissions of State Farm in the investigation, evaluation, delay, and underpayment of Plaintiffs’ Claim were unreasonable and constitute a breach of contract for which damages are hereby sought. 46. Plaintiffs remain damaged in an amount not less than $20,257.97 for the actual damages to their dwelling caused by the covered loss. 47. Plaintiffs have been forced to incur expenses for court costs and litigation for which they should be compensated. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 48. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 49. State Farm owed, and continues to owe, a duty to Plaintiffs to deal fairly and act in good faith. 50. State Farm was required under the Policy to pay the Claim. 51. State Farm’s refusal to pay the Claim in full was unreasonable under the circumstances because it did not perform a proper investigation, did not evaluate the result of the investigation properly, had no reasonable basis for refusal, and/or offered an unreasonably low amount to satisfy the Claim. 52. State Farm did not deal fairly and in good faith with Plaintiffs. 53. State Farm’s violation of its duty of good faith and fair dealing directly caused Plaintiffs’ injury. 54. The acts and omissions of State Farm were in direct breach of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insureds, Plaintiffs, and done for State Farm’s own financial benefit. 55. State Farm intentionally underestimated, underpaid, and delayed Plaintiffs’ Claim. The conduct of State Farm in the investigation, evaluation, and underpayment 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 wrongful undervaluation and underpayment of Plaintiffs’ Claim for which extra-contractual damages are hereby sought. 56. Upon information and belief, State Farm’s instruction to file a second claim was made in an attempt to either cancel or refuse to renew the Policy pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3639.1(A), while simultaneously underpaying the Claim. DAMAGES 57. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 58. 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 more than $75,000.00. 59. State Farm’s conduct with respect to Plaintiffs’ Claim constitutes bad faith breach of contract, for which punitive damages should be awarded pursuant 23 O.S. § 9.1 due to the wrongful, willful, and intentional conduct of State Farm which was in reckless disregard to the rights of its insureds, Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs move for a finding by the Court that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company breached its contractual duty to pay for damages under the valid Policy; that Plaintiffs should be awarded a sum not less than $20,257.97 in actual contract damages; a sum in excess of $75,000.00 for consequential damages as a result of State Farm’s bad faith breach of contract; that an award of punitive damages, attorney fees, costs of litigation, and accruing 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. Respectfully submitted, Matthew J. Hicks Matthew Hicks, OBA No. 32241 Caleb Salmon, OBA No. 32272 Aizenman Law Group, PLLC 5800 East Skelly Drive, Suite 575 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Telephone: (918) 426-4878 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs