CJ-2026-00038 - Cynthia Matthews v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: insurance is supposed to be the grown-up version of a safety net. You pay your premiums, you cross your fingers, and when disaster strikes—like frozen pipes turning your attic into a winter wonderland of destruction—you expect the company to at least look at the damage before saying “nope, not our problem.” But in Kay County, Oklahoma, Cynthia and James Matthews are suing Allstate not just for denying their claim, but for allegedly doing it without even sending someone to inspect the house. No visit. No photos. No investigation. Just a denial letter that showed up like an uninvited guest at a funeral. And to make it juicier? Their insurance agent knew the house was vacant and under renovation—and still sold them a standard homeowners policy. This isn’t just a dispute over money. This is a full-blown telenovela of broken promises, frozen pipes, and corporate shrugs.

Cynthia and James Matthews aren’t thrill-seekers. They’re homeowners—specifically, homeowners trying to fix up a property at 150 Whitworth Avenue in Ponca City. The house hadn’t been lived in since 2010. It was under renovation. Not abandoned, not derelict—just in that awkward middle stage where drywall is half up and dreams are still intact. In January 2025, they walked into Simplified Insurance, LLC, an Allstate-affiliated agency run by Kimberly Edens, to get coverage not just for their cars, but for this project property. They were up front: the house was vacant, it was being worked on, it wasn’t their primary residence. And yet—somehow—they walked out with a regular homeowners policy. No special clauses. No disclaimers. Just a receipt and a promise of protection. Fast forward a month, and Oklahoma gets hit with an arctic blast so brutal it makes polar bears reconsider their life choices. The Matthews, being responsible, crank the heat and drip the faucets before leaving the property—standard winter prep. But when a neighbor calls to say water’s gushing out the front door and dripping from the eaves like a sad icicle symphony, they know something’s gone wrong. Turns out, the heating system failed. Six pipes in the attic burst. The damage? Real. The response from Allstate? Radio silence—until it wasn’t.

After reporting the claim on February 18, 2025, Mrs. Matthews did everything by the book. She called 911 Restoration, as instructed by Allstate. She gathered utility bills to prove the heat had been on. She even drove to the insurance agency and had the agent, Jessica Free, fax the documents directly to Allstate’s adjuster, Doug Wax. But instead of gratitude, she got suspicion. Mr. Wax allegedly responded with baseless accusations, questioning the validity of the claim because the policy was only two months old. He acted like the Matthews were running some kind of frozen pipe scam, like they’d conspired with Jack Frost to stage a plumbing coup. No inspection was ever conducted. No adjuster ever set foot on the property. And then, on March 14—nearly a month after the claim was filed—Allstate dropped the denial letter like a mic at a bad stand-up comedy set. No explanation. No offer. Just a flat “no.” The Matthews were left holding the bill for repairs, the emotional toll of betrayal, and the growing suspicion that their insurance company had never intended to honor the contract they’d paid for.

So why are we in court? Because the Matthews aren’t just mad—they’re legally armed. Their lawsuit lays out three distinct claims, and they’re not messing around. First up: Breach of Contract. Simple idea: you pay for a service, you expect the service to be delivered. The Matthews paid their premiums. The policy was active. The loss—burst pipes due to freezing—is exactly the kind of thing homeowners insurance is supposed to cover. Allstate said no. That, the filing argues, is a straight-up breach. Second claim: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. This one’s the spicy part. In insurance law, companies aren’t just contract partners—they’re supposed to act fairly. They can’t deny claims just because they feel like it. They have to investigate. They have to be reasonable. Allstate allegedly did neither. No inspection. No valid reason for denial. Just stonewalling and suspicion. That’s not just bad customer service—it’s potentially bad faith, a legal term that opens the door to more than just repair costs. And third: Negligent Procurement of Insurance—this one’s aimed at Simplified Insurance, the agency that sold them the policy. The Matthews say they were misled. They told the agent the house was vacant and under renovation. Standard homeowners policies often exclude or limit coverage for vacant properties. But Simplified allegedly didn’t warn them, didn’t offer a different policy, didn’t clarify the risks. They just took the money and sold the coverage. Now, the Matthews are arguing that if they’d been properly advised, they could’ve gotten the right insurance—or known they weren’t covered at all. Instead, they were sold a false sense of security.

What do they want? $75,000. Is that a lot? For a house that’s been sitting empty since 2010, maybe not—especially if water damage led to mold, structural issues, or ruined materials. But the number isn’t just about repairs. It’s about the principle. It’s about the cost of lawyers, the emotional distress, the time spent chasing a company that treated them like frauds. And—crucially—they’re asking for punitive damages, which aren’t about covering costs. They’re about punishment. They’re the legal equivalent of holding up a sign that says, “We want you to hurt for doing this.” In Oklahoma, punitive damages are rare and usually reserved for truly outrageous behavior. So the Matthews aren’t just saying Allstate made a mistake—they’re saying it acted like a villain.

Our take? Look, we’re not insurance experts. We’re entertainers, not lawyers (yes, we have to say that). But here’s the absurdity no one can ignore: Allstate allegedly denied a claim for a covered loss… without ever sending someone to look at the damage. In 2025. In America. With smartphones and drones and satellite imagery. You can livestream from the International Space Station, but an insurance company can’t send a guy with a clipboard to check a house in Ponca City? Come on. And let’s not let Simplified off the hook either. If they knew the house was vacant and under renovation—and sold a standard policy without warning—then they either didn’t know their own product or didn’t care. Either way, it’s a failure. The most tragic part? The Matthews weren’t trying to cash in. They were trying to fix their house. They followed the rules. They played nice. And the system responded with suspicion and silence. So while $75,000 might sound like a lot for a frozen pipe, it’s not really about the pipes. It’s about the promise. And if insurance companies can break that promise without consequence, then what, exactly, are we paying for? We’re rooting for the little guy—because sometimes, the most dramatic courtroom battles aren’t about murder or money laundering. Sometimes, they’re about a busted pipe, a denied claim, and the quiet fury of being told you don’t matter.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Matthew J. Hicks

Aizenman Law Group, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Cynthia Matthews individual
Rep: Matthew Hicks and Caleb Salmon of Aizenman Law Group
James Matthews individual
Rep: Matthew Hicks and Caleb Salmon of Aizenman Law Group

Defendants

Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company business
Simplified Insurance, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Allstate's refusal to pay claim for damaged property
2	Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Allstate's unreasonable handling of claim
3	Negligent Procurement of Insurance	Simplified's failure to procure proper insurance

Petition Text

1,484 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CYNTHIA MATTHEWS AND JAMES MATTHEWS, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND SIMPLIFIED INSURANCE, LLC Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Cynthia Matthews and James Matthews, 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 the Defendants, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company and Simplified Insurance, LLC, allege and state as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs Cynthia Matthews ("Mrs. Matthews") and James Matthews now, and at all relevant times hereto, own real property in Kay County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company ("Allstate") is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Simplified Insurance, LLC ("Simplified"), is a domestic corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. 4. The substantial events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred in Kay County, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY 5. 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). 6. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 134 and 137, venue is proper in this Court because the acts complained of herein occurred in Kay County, Oklahoma. 7. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. 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 Allstate to Plaintiffs, bearing policy number 000885369758 ("Policy"). 9. Under the terms of the Policy, Allstate agreed to insure Plaintiffs against certain losses to Plaintiffs’ property at 150 Whitworth Avenue, Ponca City, Oklahoma 74601 ("Property"). 10. On or around January 8, 2025, Plaintiffs met with Jessica Free ("Ms. Free") at Allstate’s local agent’s office, also known as Simplified Insurance, LLC, owned and operated by Kimberly Edens ("Ms. Edens"). 11. Plaintiffs met with Ms. Free for the purpose of purchasing insurance on their homes and automobiles. 12. During this meeting, Plaintiffs explained to Ms. Free that the Property was under renovations and had not been lived in since 2010. 13. Plaintiffs relied on Ms. Free and Ms. Edens of Simplified, as Allstate’s agent, to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in the procurement of insurance. 14. During the meeting with Ms. Free, Plaintiffs purchased the Policy and paid the premium in full. 15. Despite full knowledge that the Property was vacant and under renovations, Ms. Free sold Plaintiffs a typical homeowners policy. 16. In February 2025, Oklahoma experienced an intense artic blast that brought record-breaking cold temperatures. 17. On or around February 12, 2025, Mrs. Matthews traveled to the Property with her grandson. Before leaving, as a precaution, they turned the heat up and dripped the faucets. 18. On or around February 16, 2025, a neighbor informed Mrs. Matthews that water was flowing out the front door and eaves at the Property. The neighbor turned off the water at the meter. Mrs. Matthews traveled to the Property and discovered the heating system had stopped working. 19. On or around February 17, 2025, Plaintiffs’ plumber informed Mrs. Matthews that the heat system had failed, resulting in six broken water pipes in the attic. 20. On or around February 18, 2025, Mrs. Matthews properly and timely reported the loss to Allstate; Allstate acknowledged the same and assigned claim number 0784857716 to this loss (“Claim”). Allstate instructed Plaintiffs to call a restoration company and that Allstate would pay for the restoration company’s services. Mrs. Matthews followed Allstate’s instructions and called 911 Restoration. 21. On or around February 24, 2025, having not heard anything further about the Claim, Mrs. Matthews called Allstate to follow up. Allstate adjuster Doug Wax ("Mr. Wax") later returned Mrs. Matthews’ call and immediately began making baseless accusations. 22. Thereafter, Mrs. Matthews supplied requested information to Mr. Wax including utility bills, though he continually denied receiving the same. Mrs. Matthews even traveled to the Simplified office and had Ms. Free fax the documents to Mr. Wax. But Mr. Wax continued to take an accusatory stance, making comments about the Policy only being two months old at the time of the Claim. 23. On or around March 14, 2025, Mrs. Matthews finally received an update from Allstate in the form of a denial letter, without so much as an inspection of the Property and despite Plaintiffs providing documentation showing they maintained heat at the Property. 24. Due to Allstate’s denial, Plaintiffs have been forced to cover the cost of repairs to the Property. 25. The Policy insured the Property against the type of loss and damage suffered, yet Allstate has refused to pay the Claim. 26. All other conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to coverage and benefits under the Policy have been satisfied. 27. On or around February 2, 2026, Mrs. Matthews traveled to the Simplified office in Ponca City and delivered a letter to Ms. Edens pleading for reconsideration regarding the denial of the Claim. Mrs. Matthews also faxed the letter to Mr. Wax on this same date. 28. As of the date of the filing of this Petition, no response has been received from anyone at Allstate or Simplified regarding Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT AS TO ALLSTATE 29. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 30. The Policy constitutes a valid and binding contract between Plaintiffs and Allstate. 31. Plaintiffs timely paid Allstate the owed Policy premiums. 32. In exchange for the Policy premiums, Allstate agreed to provide Plaintiffs insurance coverage to the Property. 33. While the above-referenced Policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid, Plaintiffs suffered a covered loss. 34. Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted the Claim to Allstate for benefits under the Policy. 35. Plaintiffs have in all material ways fully performed under the Policy and have demanded that Allstate perform. 36. Allstate has refused to perform and materially breached the Policy. 37. The acts and omissions of Allstate 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 Allstate. 38. The acts and omissions of Allstate in the investigation, evaluation, delay, and underpayment of Plaintiffs’ Claim were unreasonable and constitute a breach of contract for which damages are hereby sought. 39. Plaintiffs remain damaged for the actual damages to their Property caused by the covered loss. 40. 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 AS TO ALLSTATE 41. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 42. Allstate owed, and continues to owe, a duty to Plaintiffs to deal fairly and act in good faith. 43. Allstate was required under the Policy to pay the Claim. 44. Allstate’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. 45. Allstate did not deal fairly and in good faith with Plaintiffs. 46. Allstate’s violation of its duty of good faith and fair dealing directly caused Plaintiffs’ injury. 47. The acts and omissions of Allstate were in direct breach of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insureds, Plaintiffs, and done for Allstate’s own financial benefit. 48. Allstate intentionally underestimated, underpaid, and delayed Plaintiffs’ Claim. The conduct of Allstate 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. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE AS TO SIMPLIFIED 49. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 50. Simplified had a duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in the procurement of insurance. 51. Simplified failed to procure the insurance as promised or failed to inform Plaintiffs of their inability to do so. 52. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered a loss that would have been covered had the insurance been properly procured. 53. The fault or negligence of Simplified directly caused the failure to obtain coverage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Cynthia Matthews and James Matthews, pray for judgment in their favor against Defendants, for a sum exceeding $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest, together with the awarding of punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, all damages available under the law, and other relief this Court deems just and proper. 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