CJ-2026-979 - Nathan Brusich and Jennifer Brusich v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t some Law & Order drama where a serial killer gets caught because he left a monogrammed cufflink at the crime scene. No. This is better. This is the kind of legal dumpster fire that only happens when a family tries to do everything right—pays their insurance premiums on time, files a claim after a storm, hires contractors, documents everything—and then gets told by State Farm that their roof is fine… except it’s not. And not only is it not fine, but the insurance giant allegedly refused to even look at video proof that their repair plan was a complete fantasy. That’s right—video evidence. Like The Bachelor but with hail damage and existential dread. Welcome to the civil war zone that is Nathan and Jennifer Brusich versus State Farm, where the storm didn’t do the real damage—the insurance adjuster might have.

Nathan and Jennifer Brusich are just your average Oklahoma homeowners. They live at 8245 S 100th East Pl. in Tulsa, pay their bills, and, most importantly, pay their State Farm premiums like clockwork. They’re not filing frivolous claims or trying to scam the system. They’re the kind of people who probably wave at their neighbors and have a “Go Thunder” bumper sticker. In March 2025, a storm rolled through—nothing apocalyptic, but enough to rattle the gutters and maybe send a few shingles flying. Like responsible adults, they called State Farm. Claim number 36-81V3-49K was opened. All systems go, right? Wrong. State Farm sent an adjuster on March 29—two weeks later, which already feels like a very relaxed timeline for a storm-damaged roof in tornado alley—but here’s where things get wild. The adjuster took one look and said, “Eh, five shingles on the right slope, one on the front. Nothing to see here.” So little damage, in fact, that it didn’t even meet the deductible. Case closed. Except… it wasn’t.

Because the Brusiches, bless their diligent hearts, didn’t just shrug and buy a tarp. They called their own contractor. And that contractor? He looked up, squinted, and said, “Uh… your roof is toast.” Not just a few shingles. The entire roof needed replacing. Worse, the specific shingle model used on their home had been discontinued. You can’t just slap any old shingle on and call it a day—especially not if you want it to match, last, or not blow off in the next breeze. The contractor told them: full replacement, no way around it. But State Farm said, “Nah, we’ll just trim some other shingles and make it work.” Which sounds about as reliable as using duct tape to fix a flat tire.

So the Brusiches’ contractor did something genius: he filmed a repair attempt using State Farm’s suggested method. Spoiler: it failed. Miserably. Then, like a man possessed by the ghost of Bob Vila, he did it again—a second videotaped attempt. Still failed. At this point, you’d think State Farm would say, “Huh. Maybe we missed something.” But no. They refused to even watch the videos. They refused to update their estimate. They refused to acknowledge that their “solution” was less effective than a cardboard umbrella. At that point, the Brusiches did what any sane person would do: they hired a lawyer. Ashley Leavitt of Holbrook Leavitt & Associates, PLLC, stepped in like a legal avenger and filed a partial proof of loss in February 2026—over a year after the storm—with documentation from the contractor’s estimate. As of the filing date? State Farm hadn’t responded. Not a peep. Radio silence. Which, in insurance terms, is basically the equivalent of flipping someone off with both hands while driving away in their stolen car.

So why are we here, in the hallowed (or at least fluorescent-lit) halls of Tulsa County District Court? Because the Brusiches aren’t just mad—they’re suing. And they’ve got two solid claims. First: breach of contract. Simple version? “We paid you. You promised to cover storm damage. There was storm damage. You didn’t pay. That’s a broken promise.” The second claim? Bad faith—and this is where it gets spicy. In insurance law, companies don’t just have a contract with their customers; they have a duty to treat them fairly. That means investigating claims honestly, not lowballing people to save a buck, and definitely not ignoring video proof that their repair plan is garbage. The Brusiches are saying State Farm didn’t just make a mistake—they acted unreasonably, ignored evidence, and put their own profits over their customer’s home. That’s not just bad service. That’s bad faith, and in Oklahoma, that can open the door to punitive damages—money meant to punish the company, not just cover the cost of repairs.

Now, let’s talk numbers. The Brusiches are asking for $55,215.19 in actual damages—what it would cost to actually fix their roof and repair the storm damage. That’s not pocket change, but for a full roof replacement, matching materials, labor, and all the fun extras like water intrusion checks? It’s actually pretty reasonable. But then they’re asking for $75,000 in punitive damages—and another $75,000 in consequential damages (which could cover things like emotional distress, lost time, and the sheer mental toll of fighting your own insurance company). So we’re looking at a total demand of over $200,000. Is that a lot? Sure. But here’s the thing: punitive damages aren’t about fairness. They’re about sending a message. And the message the Brusiches want to send is: Don’t mess with Oklahoma homeowners.

Our take? Look, we’re not here to say State Farm is the devil. They employ real people, probably have a decent 401(k) plan, and maybe even sponsor a little league team. But come on. Ignoring videotaped proof that your repair method doesn’t work? That’s not oversight. That’s arrogance. That’s the kind of corporate tunnel vision that makes people start podcasts. The most absurd part isn’t even the storm damage—it’s the refusal to engage. It’s like if your mechanic said your brakes were fine, you showed them a video of the car rolling backward down a hill, and they said, “Cool video. Still not fixing it.” At what point does common sense kick in?

We’re rooting for the Brusiches. Not because they’re perfect, but because they did everything right—and still got gaslit by a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This case isn’t just about a roof. It’s about what happens when a company forgets that people are behind the policies. And if that means State Farm has to write a big check and maybe, just maybe, train their adjusters to watch a two-minute video, then so be it. Justice may be slow. But like a hailstorm, sometimes it just needs one good hit to remind everyone who’s really in charge.

Case Overview

$110,615 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ashley Leavitt

Holbrook Leavitt & Associates, PLLC

Relief Sought

$55,115 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Nathan Brusich and Jennifer Brusich individual
Rep: Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiffs claim State Farm breached the insurance contract by underpaying for storm damage
2	Bad Faith	Plaintiffs claim State Farm acted in bad faith by denying the claim and underpaying the damage

Petition Text

1,213 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NATHAN BRUSICH AND JENNIFER BRUSICH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. JUDGE KELLY GREENOUGH ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, Nathan Brusich and Jennifer Brusich, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and for their causes of action against Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” and/or “State Farm”) and state and allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, Nathan Brusich and Jennifer Brusich, now, and at all times relevant hereto, were citizens of the State of Oklahoma and owned real property in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY 3. This action is brought before this Court for the reason that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution for the United States. 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 4. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133, venue is proper in this Court as 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 the policy number 36-EB-E975-1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Policy"). 7. Under the terms of the Policy, Defendant agreed to insure Plaintiffs against certain losses to Plaintiffs’ property located at 8245 S 100th East Pl. Tulsa, OK 74133, (hereinafter referred to as the “Property"). 8. On or about March 14, 2025, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect, Plaintiffs’ Property was damaged as a result of a storm. 9. The Policy insured the Property against the type of loss and damage suffered. 10. Plaintiffs reported the loss to Defendant; Defendant acknowledged the same and assigned claim number 36-81V3-49K to this loss (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim”). All other conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to coverage and benefits under the Policy have been satisfied. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract) 11. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 12. The Policy constitutes a valid and binding contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 13. Plaintiffs timely paid Defendant the owed Policy premiums. 14. In exchange for the Policy provisions, State Farm agreed to provide Plaintiffs’ insurance coverage to Plaintiffs’ Property. 15. On or about March 14, 2025, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid, Plaintiffs suffered a covered loss: storm damage. 16. Plaintiffs have fully performed under the Policy and have demanded that Defendant perform; however, Defendant has refused to perform and has materially breached the Policy. 17. 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 insurance policy issued by the Defendant. The acts and omissions of the Defendant in the investigation, evaluation, delay, and payment of Plaintiffs’ claim were unreasonable and constitute a breach of contract for which contractual damages are hereby sought. 18. Plaintiffs remain damaged in an amount not less than $55,215.19 for the actual damages to their dwelling caused by the storm. 19. Plaintiffs have been forced to expend money for court costs and litigation for which they should be compensated. 20. 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. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bad Faith) 21. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 22. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim with State Farm within days of the loss. 23. State Farm sent an adjuster to inspect the Property on or about March 29, 2025. 24. Based on the incomplete inspection, State Farm wrote an estimate for very little damage – just five (5) individual shingles on the right slope and one (1) individual shingle on the front slope – which fell below Plaintiffs’ deductible. 25. Plaintiffs’ contractor inspected the Property and noted additional damages missed by State Farm’s inspection and also noted that the roof would require a full replacement as the shingle on the roof had been discontinued and was no longer available. 26. State Farm refused to update its estimate stating that a different roof shingle could be trimmed and used in the repairs. 27. Plaintiffs’ contractor performed a videotaped repair attempt to demonstrate why State Farm’s plan would not work. State Farm refused to consider the repair attempt and update its estimate. 28. After back and forth with State Farm, Plaintiffs’ contractor performed a second videotaped repair attempt which also failed, but State Farm refused to consider the second repair attempt and update its estimate. 29. Frustrated with State Farm’s denial of obvious damage and recommending a repair that was not possible, Plaintiffs hired the undersigned attorney. 30. On February 7, 2026, Plaintiffs submitted a partial proof of loss pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629 based on their contractor’s estimate. As of the date of this filing, State Farm has not responded. 31. Defendant refused to acknowledge the covered loss and refused to pay Plaintiffs the full amount of the covered loss owed under the Policy. 32. The acts and omissions of Defendant were in direct breach of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insureds, Plaintiffs, and done for Defendant’s own financial benefit. 33. Defendant intentionally underpaid, delayed, and failed to investigate Plaintiffs’ claim. The conduct of the Defendant, in the lack of investigation, evaluation, and payment 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 the wrongful and bad faith denial of Plaintiffs’ claim for which extra-contractual damages are hereby sought. DAMAGES 34. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 35. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer mental pain, frustration, anxiety, embarrassment, and loss of reputation in an amount to be determined. 36. Defendant’s conduct with respect to Plaintiffs’ Claim constitutes a bad faith breach of contract, for which punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1 due to the wrongful, willful, and intentional conduct of the Defendant which was in reckless disregard of the rights of its insureds, Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs move for a finding by the Court that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company breached its contractual duty to pay for storm damages under the valid Policy; that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing; that Plaintiffs should be awarded a sum not less than $55,215.19 in actual damages; a sum in excess of $75,000.00 for consequential damages as a result of Defendant’s breaches; a sum in excess of $75,000.00 for punitive damages; that an award of attorney fees, costs of litigation and 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. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully Submitted, [signature] Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818 HOLBROOK LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 4815 S. Harvard Ave., Ste 285 Tulsa, OK 74135 P: (918) 373-9394 F: (918) 539-0269 E: [email protected] Counsel for the Plaintiffs