CJ-2026-00035 - Ashlee White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest—insurance companies are supposed to be the cavalry, not the enemy. But when a tornado rips through your home and the company that promised to protect you responds with a shrug and a check for $15,000—while your actual repairs cost over $100,000—well, that’s when the cavalry starts looking a lot like the bandits. That’s exactly what Ashlee White says happened in Ada, Oklahoma, where she’s now suing State Farm for allegedly treating her tornado-ravaged house like a minor DIY project, not a total disaster zone.

Ashlee White is just a regular homeowner in Pontotoc County—no cape, no corporate backing, just a roof over her head and a State Farm policy she thought would’ve got her back when things went sideways. And boy, did they go sideways. On March 4, 2025—yes, the future, but in court filings, time is but a suggestion—a tornado came through Ada like an uninvited guest with a demolition fetish. It tore into White’s home at 1010 E 9th Street, messing up the roof, shattering windows, wrecking the siding, and generally making it clear that this wasn’t a “patch it with some caulk and call it a day” kind of situation. White did what any responsible adult with homeowner’s insurance does: she called her provider, filed a claim (assigned number 3681J783F, because nothing says drama like a claim ID), and waited for the cavalry to arrive. State Farm, the multi-billion-dollar insurance giant that practically has its own zip code in Illinois, sent an adjuster on March 12. One week later. Which, fine, tornado season is busy—but we’re just getting started on the vibes of this story.

The adjuster showed up, did a walkaround, and then dropped a bomb disguised as an estimate: $15,476.53. That’s it. That’s the damage. That’s what State Farm said it would cost to fix a house that had just been hit by a tornado. For context, that amount wouldn’t even cover a high-end roof replacement in many parts of Oklahoma, let alone a full structural recovery. White, probably blinking at the number like it was written in hieroglyphics, did what any sane person would do—she called in a contractor. And not just any contractor, but one who apparently knows the difference between “wind gust” and “apocalyptic vortex.” That contractor came back with an estimate exceeding $100,000. Yes, that’s more than six times what State Farm offered. And suddenly, the plot thickens.

White, still playing by the rules, asked State Farm to please—please—come back and take a second look. Maybe the first guy missed something? Like, say, the gaping holes in the siding or the windows that were now scattered across the backyard like modern art? But State Farm said no. No reinspection. No revised estimate. Just a polite corporate “tough luck” and a closed file. That’s when the gloves came off. Because here’s the thing: White wasn’t just asking for a handout. She was asking for what her insurance policy was supposed to cover. She met all her obligations—paid her premiums, reported the claim on time, cooperated with the investigation. But State Farm? According to the lawsuit, they did the bare minimum, called it a day, and then refused to admit they might’ve messed up. That’s not just bad customer service. That’s allegedly a breach of contract, and possibly something way worse.

So why is this in court? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of people who only watch courtroom dramas for the outfits. First claim: Breach of insurance contract. Translation? You signed a deal with me, State Farm. You said, “Pay us monthly, and we’ll cover damage from disasters.” Well, disaster struck. I filed a claim. You lowballed me and refused to pay what’s actually needed. That’s not honoring the contract. That’s ghosting your responsibilities with a spreadsheet. Second claim: Breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. This one’s juicier. It means that even beyond the contract, there’s an unwritten rule that insurers have to treat their customers fairly. They can’t just ignore obvious damage or drag their feet to save a buck. White is saying State Farm didn’t just make a mistake—they chose not to see the full damage, and that’s not just negligent, it’s shady. And third? Punitive damages. Oh, now we’re in the danger zone. This isn’t about covering costs anymore. This is about punishment. White wants the jury to slap State Farm with extra money because their behavior was so reckless or intentional that it deserves a financial spanking.

And what’s she asking for? At least $75,000 in actual damages—though her contractor’s estimate was over $100,000, so this might be a conservative ask. Plus, she wants punitive damages—and not just a slap on the wrist, but at least as much as the actual damages, possibly more. Is $75,000 a lot? For a single homeowner in Ada, Oklahoma—absolutely. It’s the difference between rebuilding and living in a FEMA trailer for two years. But for State Farm? That’s pocket change. Their quarterly profits are measured in billions. So this isn’t really about the money—it’s about the message. It’s about whether a giant corporation can lowball a storm victim and walk away clean.

Here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t even the $15k vs. $100k math. It’s the audacity of refusing a reinspection. Imagine your car gets T-boned, and the insurance adjuster glances at the front bumper, says “looks like a $500 fix,” and then refuses to open the hood when you say the engine is smoking. That’s what this feels like. And yet, this isn’t some obscure insurer operating out of a basement—it’s State Farm, the folks with the jingle, the gecko’s more wholesome cousin, the “like a good neighbor” brand. They’re supposed to be the trustworthy ones. But in this story, they’re acting like they’ve never seen storm damage before. Or worse—they’ve seen it plenty, and they’ve perfected the art of underpaying.

We’re not saying every claim should be paid in full. Fraud exists. But when a tornado hits, a contractor confirms catastrophic damage, and the insurer won’t even look again? That’s not skepticism. That’s systemic indifference. And while we’re not rooting for frivolous lawsuits or windfall payouts, we are rooting for accountability. For the idea that a policy isn’t a trap door, but a promise. And if State Farm wants to keep singing that jingle, maybe they should start acting like they actually mean it. Because right now, Ashlee White isn’t just fighting for a new roof. She’s fighting for the right to believe that when disaster strikes, her insurance company won’t be the second one to let her down.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

David B. Donchin

DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Ashlee White individual
Rep: David B. Donchin, Joshua L. Young, Ryan M. Oldfield

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of insurance contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to reasonably and fully investigate Plaintiff's property and under evaluated the damage to Plaintiff's home at $15,476.53.
2	breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing	Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff's claim and refused to pay for all of the damages to Plaintiff's Insured Property.
3	punitive damages	Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury but not less than the amount of actual damages sought at trial.

Petition Text

1,179 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ASHLEE WHITE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. CJ-26-35 PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Ashlee White, and for her causes of action against Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Ashlee White, is a resident of Pontotoc County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"), is a foreign insurance company domiciled and incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. 3. The damaged property at issue is located at 1010 E 9th Street, Ada, Pontotoc County, Oklahoma (the "Insured Property"). 4. At the time of the loss, Plaintiff was insured under State Farm Fire and Casualty Company homeowners’ policy number (Policy No. 36-BQ-V101-8). 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and venue is appropriate in Pontotoc County. FACTS 6. Plaintiff purchased a homeowners insurance policy from Defendant State Farm, policy number 36-BQ-V101-8 which was in effect on the date of loss. 7. Plaintiff's property is located at 1010 E 9th Street, Ada, Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. 8. On or about March 4, 2025, Plaintiff's property was severely damaged as a direct result by a tornado. 9. Damage to Plaintiff's home included damage to the roof, siding, structures in the backyard, and windows. 10. Plaintiff reported the tornado damage to Defendant State Farm in a timely manner. 11. Plaintiff presented a claim to Defendant State Farm. 12. Defendant State Farm received notice of the loss and assigned claim number 3681J783F to the claim. It then assigned the claim to an adjuster. 13. On or about March 12, 2025, Defendant State Farm sent a representative to Plaintiff's home for an inspection relating to the loss. 14. Defendant State Farm did not reasonably and fully investigate Plaintiff's property because it did not identify all the damage to Plaintiff home 15. Defendant State Farm prepared an estimate and unreasonably under evaluated the damage to Plaintiff's home at $15,476.53. 16. This estimate did not address all of the covered damage caused by the tornado to Plaintiff's home which was clearly observable. 17. After receiving Defendant State Farm's estimate, Plaintiff had a contractor inspect Plaintiff's home and prepare an estimate. 18. This contractor prepared an estimate identifying damage to Plaintiff's home in an amount over $100,000 caused by the tornado. 19. Plaintiff then requested Defendant State Farm reinspect the property. 20. Defendant State Farm refused to reinspect the property and refused to revise its unreasonably low evaluation of Plaintiff's claim. 21. Plaintiff complied with all terms and conditions of the insurance policy and all reasonable requests by Defendant State Farm. 22. Defendant State Farm failed to reasonably inspect Plaintiff's home by not identifying all of the damage caused by the tornado and refusing to reinspect the property. 23. Defendant State Farm failed to reasonably and timely evaluate Plaintiff's claim by not properly estimating the costs needed to repair Plaintiff's home for damages covered under Plaintiff's homeowner's policy with Defendant State Farm. 24. As a result, Defendant State Farm wrongfully denied payment for damages which are clearly covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT 25. Plaintiff hereby asserts, alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-15 herein. 26. The property insurance policy number 36-BQ-V101-8 issued by Defendant State Farm to Plaintiff was in effect on March 3, 2025, and at all times relevant to Plaintiff's claim with Defendant State Farm. 27. Subsequent to the damaging event at Plaintiff's property, Plaintiff timely submitted an insurance claim to Defendant State Farm. 28. Defendant State Farm had the ability and capability to investigate the claim submitted by Plaintiff. 29. Defendant State Farm and its representative did not reasonably and fairly inspect Plaintiff's home for damage caused by a covered loss because it incorrectly concluded that the damage to Plaintiff's home, such as the roof and windows, were not damaged by a tornado when the type of damage clearly shows that it was damaged by the tornado. 30. Defendant State Farm refused to pay for all of the damage relating to Plaintiff's claim. 31. The actions of Defendant State Farm violated and breached the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. 32. As a direct result of Defendant State Farm's breach of contract, Plaintiff sustained damages and seeks payment for all amounts due under the contract for damage to Plaintiff's Insured Property which are in excess of $75,000. COUNT II BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 33. Plaintiff hereby asserts, alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-24 herein. 34. Subsequent to the damaging event at Plaintiff's Insured Property, Plaintiff timely submitted an insurance claim to Defendant State Farm. 35. Following receipt of Plaintiff's claim, Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff's claim. As a result of its unreasonable investigation, Defendant failed to properly, timely, and fairly evaluate the claim and compensate Plaintiff for damage which was covered under the policy. 36. Defendant refused to issue policy payments to Plaintiff for all of the damages to her Insured Property. Defendant's refusal to pay for all of the repairs and/or replacement of damaged property is unreasonable and a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealings and represents a bad faith breach of Plaintiff's insurance policy issued by Defendant. 37. Defendant failed to properly evaluate and pay Plaintiff's claim at the time of its inspection of the property and has unreasonably delayed Plaintiff's claim and the policy payments due thereon. 38. The acts and omissions of Defendant State Farm in the investigation, evaluation and denial of payments were unreasonable and constitute a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and for with bad faith and extracontractual damages are sought. 39. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has suffered damages including financial losses, mental pain and suffering, loss of reputation, embarrassment, and other damages in excess of $75,000. COUNT III PUNITIVE DAMAGES 40. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference herein all material allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-38 above as though fully set forth herein. 41. The conduct of Defendant State Farm in the handling, delay, and denial of Plaintiffs' claim, and refusal to pay or timely pay amounts covered under the policy, was willful and wanton, intentional, and committed with a reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs that entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000. 42. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury but not less than the amount of actual damages sought at trial. 43. Plaintiff hereby requests the matter set forth herein be determined by a jury of her peers. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ashlee White, prays for judgment against Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, for her damages, for contractual, extra-contractual and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus her costs, interest, attorney fees and other such relief this Court deems just and equitable. DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK By: David B. Donchin, OBA #10783 Joshua L. Young, OBA #31279 Ryan M. Oldfield, OBA #18976 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405) 235-9584 Facsimile: (405) 235-0551 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED 9975.0027\Petition(22269868.1)