CJ-2026-51 - Tony Wilson v. American Mercury Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: insurance is supposed to be the safety net. You pay your premiums like clockwork, you cross your fingers you never need it, and when disaster hits—hail the size of golf balls, wind that sounds like a freight train—you call your provider, expecting someone to show up, assess the damage, and help you rebuild. But in this case, Tony and Oana Wilson didn’t get a safety net. They got a corporate shrug, a denial letter, and now, a $75,000 lawsuit against American Mercury Insurance Company. And honestly? The most insane part isn’t even the denial—it’s the audacity with which it was delivered. “Looks pretty straightforward,” the adjuster said. Then they paid nothing. Zero. Zilch. Not even enough to cover a tarp for the roof.

So who are we talking about here? Tony and Oana Wilson—just your average homeowners in Edmond, Oklahoma, living their life, paying their bills, probably arguing over whose turn it is to take out the trash. They’re not scheming to defraud an insurance company. They’re not filing claims for damage they caused themselves. They’re just people who, on May 19, 2025, got absolutely pummeled by a wind and hailstorm that turned their roof into Swiss cheese. Shingles ripped, soft metals dented, hail impacts everywhere. It wasn’t subtle. And when you’re staring up at a roof that looks like it lost a fight with a meteor shower, the first thing you do—after making sure your family’s safe—is call a roofer. Which they did. And that roofer? He didn’t mince words. Full roof replacement. Not a patch job. Not “wait and see.” Replace it. He took photos—clear, detailed, professional—and handed the Wilsons an inspection report that should’ve been a slam dunk for their claim.

So they filed. Claim number OKHO-00012652. Promptly. Properly. With receipts, photos, and a contractor’s stamp of “this is bad, fix it now.” And American Mercury Insurance Company? They sent an adjuster. Then they sent a second adjuster—Hancock Claims Consultants, because one denial isn’t dramatic enough, apparently. At first, it sounded promising. One of Mercury’s reps even said the damage “looks pretty straightforward.” That’s not legal jargon. That’s English. That’s code for “yep, we’re paying this.” But then… radio silence. Or worse: a full-blown reversal. Suddenly, Mercury claimed there was no hail damage. No wind damage. Just “wear and tear.” As if the storm rolled through and only targeted roofs that were already on their last leg. Convenient, right? And get this—they didn’t just ignore the Wilsons’ contractor’s report. They disregarded it. Didn’t challenge it. Didn’t counter with their own expert. Just tossed it like yesterday’s news and closed the claim. No explanation. No appeal process. Just a flat “nope.”

Now, why are we in court? Because this isn’t just about a denied claim. It’s about how it was denied. The Wilsons aren’t just suing for breach of contract—which, yes, is the backbone here: you pay for coverage, you get hit by a covered event, you expect payment. Mercury allegedly took the money, ignored the damage, and broke that basic promise. But the real fireworks come in the second and third claims: breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive fraud. Let’s break that down like we’re explaining it to a very confused dog.

First, “good faith and fair dealing” sounds like something out of a philosophy class, but in insurance law, it means the company can’t screw over its customers. They can’t drag their feet, lie, hide facts, or treat you like a number. And according to the Wilsons, Mercury did all of it. They allegedly used biased adjusters who work only for the insurance company’s bottom line. They allegedly forced the Wilsons to hire lawyers just to get what they were owed. They allegedly ghosted them, misrepresented facts, and refused to even pretend to care. And then—plot twist—they may have been lying from the start. That’s the constructive fraud claim. Not “you stole from me,” but “you tricked me into trusting you.” The Wilsons say Mercury never told them about shady internal practices—like systematically underpaying claims or training adjusters to find reasons to deny. They say Mercury made it sound like everything was fine, coverage was solid, and claims would be handled fairly… right up until they weren’t.

And what do the Wilsons want? $75,000. Is that a lot? For a roof? Maybe not. Roof replacements in Oklahoma can run $15,000 to $25,000 easy, depending on size and damage. But $75,000? That’s not just about shingles. That’s about punishment. Because the Wilsons aren’t just asking for the cost of repairs. They’re asking for punitive damages—money meant to slap a company’s wrist and say, “Don’t do this again.” They want Mercury to feel it. And honestly? That number starts to make sense when you factor in emotional distress, lost peace of mind, the stress of fighting a giant corporation that’s supposed to be on your side. Imagine being told your house is damaged, then being told it’s not, then being told it’s your fault for having an old roof, all while rain leaks into your living room and your kids ask why Dad’s yelling at the phone again. That kind of thing has a cost. And sometimes, the only language big companies understand is dollars.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not rooting for people to scam insurance companies. That’s a one-way ticket to societal collapse. But this? This feels like a textbook case of corporate gaslighting. The “straightforward” comment alone is chef’s kiss levels of irony. It’s the insurance equivalent of “we’re just going to talk” before a breakup. And the fact that Mercury allegedly has a pattern of doing this—using the same third-party adjusters, denying claims with the same worn-out excuses—makes it feel less like a mistake and more like a strategy. The most absurd part? That the Wilsons had to sue their own insurer just to get what they paid for. That’s like paying for a parachute and then being told, after you jump, that it doesn’t actually open. You paid for safety. You got betrayal.

We’re rooting for the Wilsons. Not because they’re perfect, not because every claim should be automatically approved, but because the system is supposed to work for people, not against them. Insurance isn’t a magic trick where your money disappears and nothing comes back. It’s a promise. And when a company breaks that promise—especially with the cold efficiency of a spreadsheet—someone needs to call them on it. So yeah, take your jury trial, Wilsons. Bring the photos. Bring the contractor’s report. And maybe, just maybe, bring a copy of that adjuster’s voicemail saying it “looks pretty straightforward.” Because sometimes, the most damning evidence isn’t in the fine print. It’s in the words they said out loud, before they changed their minds.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Randall K. Calvert, Andrew R. Davis

Calvert Law Firm

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Tony Wilson individual
Rep: Randall K. Calvert, OBA #14154, Andrew R. Davis, OBA #32763, Calvert Law Firm
Oana Wilson individual
Rep: Randall K. Calvert, OBA #14154, Andrew R. Davis, OBA #32763, Calvert Law Firm

Defendants

American Mercury Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay benefits owed under the insurance policy after the insured property sustained damage from a wind and hailstorm.
2	Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Plaintiffs allege that Defendant acted in bad faith and failed to deal with them fairly by denying their claim and failing to communicate with them in a timely and honest manner.
3	Constructive Fraud	Plaintiffs allege that Defendant misrepresented and concealed material facts from them, including the extent of the damage to the insured property and their treatment of insureds.

Petition Text

1,515 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOGAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TONY WILSON and OANA WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. CJ-2024-51 Jury Trial Demanded PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiffs Tony and Oana Wilson ("Plaintiffs") and allege the following facts and causes of action against the Defendant American Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury"). 1. Plaintiffs are residents of Logan County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Mercury is an Oklahoma insurance corporation that sells and services insurance policies in the State of Oklahoma, to Oklahoma residents. 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. 4. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance with Mercury to provide coverage to their dwelling, other structures, and personal property located in Logan County, Oklahoma ("Insured Property"). Mercury issued homeowners' policy No. OKHP0000047406 ("Policy"). 5. Plaintiffs paid the premiums on the Policy. 6. On or about May 19, 2025, the Insured Property sustained extensive damage from a significant wind and hailstorm, including but not limited to hail impacts all over the roof shingles, wind-compromised shingles, soft metals pelted by hail, and other such dents and damage. 7. Plaintiffs had a roofing contractor inspect the Insured Property. The roofing contractor inspected the damage, took several photos, and recommended a full roof replacement. 8. The inspection report and estimate prepared by Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor thoroughly details the extent of the wind and hail damage sustained by the Insured Property and contains numerous high quality photographs taken of the damage to the Insured Property. 9. As a result of the extensive storm damage, Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted a claim to Mercury for the storm damage – Claim No. OKHO-00012652 (“Claim”). 10. Mercury failed to fully and accurately inspect the Insured Property. 11. Mercury deployed its adjuster to inspect the storm damage to the Insured Property and hired a third-party adjuster, Hancock Claims Consultants (“Hancock”). Mercury’s representative told Plaintiffs the damage “looks pretty straightforward,” suggesting coverage for the Claim. 12. However, despite documented evidence to the contrary, Mercury told Plaintiffs there was no damage consistent with hail or storm. Mercury told Plaintiffs there were issues of wear and tear associated with the roof but the Policy does not insure for loss caused by wear and tear. 13. Neither Mercury’s adjuster nor Hancock considered the full extent of the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. Further, they disregarded the opinions and findings of Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor with respect to the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. 14. Mercury disregarded, rejected, and/or failed to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor or the full extent of the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. 15. Mercury denied and closed the Claim; and to this date, Mercury has steadfastly refused to provide any coverage or pay Plaintiffs anything for their wind and hail Claim. 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe Mercury knowingly and intentionally, without just cause, understated the damage and condition of the Insured Property to deny the Claim. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 17. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. 18. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance with Mercury to provide coverage for their dwelling, other structures, and personal property located at 14435 S. Midwest Blvd., Edmond, Oklahoma 73034. The Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 19. Plaintiffs provided proper and timely notice to Mercury of the Claim arising from wind and hail damage on May 19, 2025, which significantly damaged the Insured Property. 20. Plaintiffs complied in all material ways with the terms of the Policy. 21. Mercury breached its contractual obligations under the Policy by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under the terms the Policy and for wrongfully denying the Claim. 22. As a result of Mercury’s breach and wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs incurred damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 23. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. 24. Mercury owed Plaintiffs a duty to deal fairly and act in good faith. 25. Mercury breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs. The actions stated herein violate Mercury’s duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs. 26. In particular, Mercury breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably, and in bad faith, engaging in (at least) the following acts and omissions: (i) failing to disclose, explain, and provide all coverages and benefits applicable to the Claim; (ii) failing to properly and timely investigate and pay the Claim; (iii) forcing Plaintiffs to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits to which they were entitled under the terms of the Policy; (iv) failing to communicate timely and in good faith with Plaintiffs; (v) concealing information and misrepresenting facts and circumstances to Plaintiffs; (vi) failing to follow or comply with applicable Oklahoma law; (vii) utilizing adjusters and third parties who consistently work to adjust claims in a biased and unfair manner toward insureds, but for the benefit of Mercury; (viii) refusing to fully and fairly pay Plaintiffs’ claim with no legitimate basis; and (ix) failing to give equal consideration to Plaintiffs’ interests in handling the Claim. 27. As a consequence of Mercury’s breach, Plaintiffs have suffered financial loss, loss of peace of mind and security, and have suffered emotional distress, worry and anguish, financial distress, and embarrassment, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. 28. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs further allege that Mercury’s conduct during the handling of the Claim was not an isolated event, but rather was consistent with approved company-wide practices or policies that, among other things, reward and encourage the systematic reduction, delay, or avoidance of the proper payment of valid claims submitted to Mercury. 29. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages to punish Mercury and deter others from similar conduct in the future. Mercury intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with Plaintiffs, and/or acted recklessly, in disregard of its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insureds Plaintiffs. As a result of this reckless and/or intentional conduct by Mercury, the Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to recover punitive damages in excess of $75,000 to punish Mercury and deter others from similar conduct in the future. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Fraud) 30. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. 31. Mercury owed Plaintiffs a heightened duty, including but not limited to the duty of good faith and fair dealing, to communicate fully, fairly, and honestly with Plaintiffs. 32. Mercury breached this duty by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiffs, including (but not limited to) the following: (i) Mercury misrepresented and/or omitted material facts regarding that the Insured Property met all underwriting requirements such that coverage would be afforded to the Insured Property (including the roof) in the event of a loss by a covered event; (ii) Mercury failed to disclose any pre-existing issues with the Insured Property that would either prevent or limit coverage for damage during the Policy period; (iii) Mercury misrepresented that this would be a "straightforward" Claim; (iv) Mercury failed to disclose all material information about Mercury's treatment of insureds, including but not limited to bad faith claims handling practices on property damage claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision; and (v) Mercury failed to disclose to Plaintiffs any of the above misrepresentations and/or omissions, any facts underlying these misrepresentations and/or omissions, or any material facts regarding Mercury's treatment of insureds, including but not limited to its handling of property damage claims. 33. Mercury knew it had a duty to truthfully disclose the facts it concealed or misrepresented, and Mercury knew those facts were material to the Plaintiffs and the Policy. 34. At all relevant times, Mercury had full knowledge of its concealment and the falsity of its statements. Mercury nevertheless presented them as true, correct, and accurate. 35. Mercury concealed and misrepresented these facts to induce the Plaintiffs to rely on the concealment and/or misrepresentation and to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. 36. As a result of Mercury’s breach of duty, Mercury gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiffs to substantial detriment and prejudice. These breaches of duty induced Plaintiffs to accept, purchase, and renew the Policy with Mercury, to the detriment of Plaintiffs. 37. As a consequence of Mercury’s conduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged, including financial loss, loss of peace of mind and security, and have suffered emotional distress, worry and anguish, financial distress, and embarrassment, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. 38. Mercury’s actions were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, fraudulent, and conducted with a conscious disregard for the rights of their insureds, the Plaintiffs. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Tony and Oana Wilson respectfully requests they be awarded actual, compensatory, and exemplary damages against the Defendant American Mercury Insurance Company in excess of $75,000, together with any further relief this Court deems appropriate, including interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] Randall K. Calvert, OBA #14154 Andrew R. Davis, OBA #32763 CALVERT LAW FIRM 1041 NW Grand Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 (405) 848-5000 Telephone (405) 848-5052 Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jury Trial Demanded Attorney's Lien Claimed