Sheila and Terry Bryant Frazier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Vicky Richey Insurance Agency, Inc.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SHEILA AND TERRY BRYANT FRAZIER, individually and as Trustees of the BRYANT FRAZIER AND SHEILA FRAZIER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. (1) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and (2) VICKY RICHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PETITION I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Petition alleges a systematic and pervasive Scheme on the part of Defendants (a) State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") and (b) State Farm's captive agent, Vicky Richey Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Agent" or "Richey"). By and through their Scheme, Defendants have wrongfully denied a series of valid insurance claims Plaintiffs submitted for storm damage to Plaintiffs' Insured Properties. Defendants' Scheme has caused substantial harm to Plaintiffs. II. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 2. Plaintiffs Sheila and Terry Bryant Frazier are natural persons residing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs are the trustees of the Bryant Frazier and Sheila Frazier Revocable Living Trust. 3. Plaintiff the Bryant and Sheila Frazier Revocable Living Trust owns the "Insured Property" at issue in this case: the home that is located at 249 SW 140th Terrace, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73170-6852. The Insured Property was insured under State Farm Policy No. 36CSA4602. Plaintiffs filed Claim No. 36-83L4-91P. 4. Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. State Farm may be found and served via its statutory service agent the Oklahoma Insurance Department in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 1 This Petition refers to State Farm and Richey collectively as "Defendants." 5. Defendant Vicky Richey Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Richey") is a captive State Farm agency owned and operated by Vicky Richey and located at 8601 S. Walker Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73139-9462. Richey may be served with process through its registered agent for the same, Vicky Richey, at 8601 S. Walker Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73139-9462. 6. Richey is a properly joined defendant to this action, as held in a long line of remanded cases against State Farm alleging substantially the same claims and/or Scheme. See e.g., Coover v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 3470868 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 3, 2025) (Wyrick, D.J.) (order consolidating seven cases, granting each motion to remand, and directing that each case be remanded to the appropriate State of Oklahoma district court); Willard v. State Farm, 2025 WL 2419274 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025) (Palk, D.J.) (order consolidating eleven cases, granting each motion to remand, and directing that each case be remanded to the appropriate State of Oklahoma district court); Hope v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 WL 165487 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2026) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.); Adair v. State Farm, 2025 WL 1263128, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 1, 2025) (Dishman, D.J.),2 As Agent is a citizen of the forum-state, removal of this action would be improper. The Supreme Court of the United States has expressly noted Plaintiffs’ right to choose state 2 See also, e.g., Weber v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 WL 146551 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2026) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.); Adamo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 2992560 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 24, 2025) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.); Gabel v. State Farm, 2025 WL 2938817 (W.D. Okla., Oct. 16, 2025) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.); Maher v. State Farm, 2025 WL 1909507 (W.D. Okla. July 10, 2025) (Wyrick, D.J.); Pruitt v. State Farm, 2025 WL 1030353 (W.D. Okla. April 7, 2025) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.). court as the forum they wish to litigate instead of federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction: "The identity of the party asking for the dismissal is important because "[t]he plaintiff is 'the master of the complaint,'" and generally has the right to choose whether to proceed in federal or state court. The prejudice to the plaintiff in such circumstances is clear, for "plaintiffs are ordinarily allowed to select whatever forum they consider most advantageous." The [Plaintiffs] exercised their right to choose a state forum by purposefully and properly joining a nondiverse defendant against whom they could not proceed in federal court, and diligently asserted that right by promptly moving to remand the case to state court. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc. v. Palmquist, No. 24-724, 2026 WL 501733, at *7 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)(citations omitted)(emphasis added). 7. Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs to the same Scheme impacting numerous other State Farm insureds; accordingly, the Petition's Scheme allegations here mirror those in other Petitions against State Farm. Indeed, State Farm has subjected policyholders uniformly (both in Oklahoma and in other storm-prone states) to its Scheme by and through the material assistance of its captive agents like Richey. According to Oklahoma news sources, approximately 900 Oklahoma families have filed suit against State Farm for claims arising under this Scheme.3 There are unique factual differences across each such Petition—e.g., the date of loss, the agent and adjusters furthering the Scheme, the specific tactics State Farm used in each instance to deny the claim or force its payment under the policy deductible amount, and the resultant damages. _____________________________________ 3 https://oklahomawatch.org/2026/02/27/twin-chickasha-hearings-reveal-agents-knew-of-hail-claim-practice/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2026). 8. Nevertheless, because the core misconduct at issue remains materially identical in each instance, State Farm routinely assails these similarities as indicia of fraud. But as the Honorable Judge Scott Palk, Western District of Oklahoma, recently held: the fact that Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on the existence of a widespread scheme by State Farm dispels that the use of a formulaic petition, in and of itself, demonstrates actual fraud. Willard v. State Farm, 2025 WL 2419274, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025)(Palk, D.J.). This specific Petition “include[s] unique factual allegations demonstrating the specific alleged harm suffered by each plaintiff.” Id. Thus, State Farm’s attacks on the “cookie-cutter” or “form” nature of the numerous petitions based on the Scheme filed against it (arguments State Farm routinely recycles while ignoring the particular fact allegations of each petition) are meritless. See Pruitt, 2025 WL 1030353, at *4 (DeGiusti, C.D.J.) (“As State Farm is likely aware, several judges in this district have found that allegations of cookie-cutter complaints are, alone, insufficient to establish fraudulent joinder.”) (citing Norman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 342871, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2025) (Russell, D.J.)). 9. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10. "Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there"—a ubiquitous jingle designed to lure insureds into reliance upon State Farm’s duty of good faith and promises of comprehensive indemnity. But despite its hollow “good neighbor” promises, State Farm employs a systematic and pervasive Scheme throughout Oklahoma, whereby it wrongfully denies its insureds’ claims for damage to their covered property caused by tornado, wind and/or hail. State Farm’s pre-determined denials of wind and hailstorm claims pursuant to the Scheme are unreasonable and lack true justification. State Farm and its agents (including Richey) employ the Scheme intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully for profit. They do so in bad faith. 11. At all relevant times, State Farm’s Scheme is carried out in substantial and material part by its captive agents (like Richey), who are aware of the Scheme, understand its impact on State Farm insureds (like Plaintiffs), and even benefit from the payment reduction the Scheme is designed to achieve. A. Scheme Origins and Implementation 12. State Farm’s Scheme is no accident. Rather, it is the product of careful corporate analysis and planning. It is designed to meet specific goals. This subsection explains the origins, development, and implementation of State Farm’s Scheme. 13. State Farm’s Property & Casualty Claims Department ("P&CCD") identified roof claim payments as the State Farm’s largest operating cost. In response, the P&CCD issued a memorandum identifying that State Farm was overpaying "roof spend" (*i.e.*, indemnity payments under dwelling insurance policies for damage to roofs). P&C Claims is focusing on what we can do *to lower our indemnity payments related to Roofs*. Last year we had an indemnity over $3.5 Billion dollars and a total of $16.6 Billion over the last 7 years for the Enterprise on roofing. State Farm’s P&CCD followed with an investigation into initiatives to reduce its payments on roof claims and thereby lower State Farm’s "roof spend" and pad its bottom line. 14. To lead that investigation, State Farm’s formed its *Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team* ("WHMET"). The WHMET is a star chamber consisting of approximately ten internal State Farm property claims experts. In Barnett v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-20-141 (Grady County, Oklahoma), State Farm Claims Consultant Tom Moss testified to the existence of the WHMET, of which Moss was a member.⁴ 15. Under the direction and leadership of Nichole Manduca, and with the advice and direction of senior State Farm leadership (including Wensley Herbert, Tyrone Smith, Scott Welsh, Wendy Massa, Kathy Rees, and Moss), the WHMET issued a series of recommendations, which State Farm implemented under its Wind/Hail Focus Initiative: its plan to reduce payouts on roof replacements.⁵ These included (but were not limited to): • enterprise-wide restrictions for all State Farm claims handling personnel on their ability to issue payment for total roof replacements without prior managerial approval; • enterprise-wide use of HAAG training for all claims handlers working on wind and/or hail claims; and • mandatory retraining for those adjusters who issue too may roof payments. On information and belief, these tactics were memorialized and implemented through a series of “Quality Plans.” 16. The result is nothing short of a Scheme to undercut State Farm’s insureds to pad its bottom line. State Farm launched the Scheme with test runs in Dallas, Texas and ⁴ See Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Hosier v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-2021-1741 (Feb. 23, 2024, Grady Cty, Okla.), at pp. 6-8, available on OSCN. ⁵ WHMET Member Tom Moss testified to several WHMET recommendations and implementations affecting State Farm’s handling of wind/hail and roof claims. See id. then implemented in all hail-prone states in approximately early 2021. State Farm tracked, documented, and analyzed its reductions in total roof replacements, total to partial roof replacement ratios, and total roof replacement indemnity. State Farm conducted state by state statistical analyses of such ratios and indemnity savings from approximately 2020. State Farm worked with Accenture6 and the WHMET Team to develop and implement the Scheme over several years. The result: a staggering reduction in State Farm’s overall indemnity payments to its insureds at the hand of an array of bad faith claims handling tactics. B. The Scheme Results in the Denial of Valid Roof Claims 17. Defendants’ wind and hailstorm Scheme (the “Scheme”) operates as follows. 1. State Farm Captive Agents Anchor the Scheme. 18. In each instance, State Farm’s Scheme begins with its captive agents (including Richey), who market, sell, procure, and bind (whether at inception and/or 6 State Farm employed Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting), a Fortune Global 500 international consulting firm with a market capitalization of over $150 billion, to develop ways to achieve this indemnity reduction. Accenture provided State Farm with alleged “industry standards” on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail insurance claims nationwide, purporting to show that State Farm was paying for full or total roof replacements at a much higher percentage than the nationwide average. Such an arbitrary endeavor is either a complete fabrication, or some unsubstantiated and possibly illegal analysis to reach an improper and generalized notion that wind/hail claims and corresponding replacement of a particular roof in question can be evaluated on a uniform basis. Regardless, State Farm and the WHMET acted upon Accenture’s consulting and worked with Accenture to develop its Wind/Hail Scheme to reduce its internal performance measures on percentages of full roof replacements to the alleged much lower industry standards. State Farm found its golden opportunity and determined (before claims occurred) it could substantially reduce its indemnity payouts by lowering its percentage of approval for full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims. Thus, unnecessary roof replacements and meeting some arbitrary and capricious industry standard became the main target of the WHMET in order to achieve its desired goal of lowering indemnity related to roofs. renewal) State Farm homeowners’ insurance to the insured. Richey’s involvement exemplifies this foundational part of the Scheme; Plaintiffs discuss it in detail in Subsection C, below, after explaining the mechanics of State Farm’s unlawful claims handling and concocted denials. 2. The Scheme Results in Claim Denial, One Way or Another 19. In each instance, a State Farm insured (here, Plaintiffs) files a valid claim for indemnity under a State Farm insurance policy for damage to the insured property caused by a storm—i.e., wind, hail, and/or tornado. As State Farm has pre-ordained denial of the insured’s roof claim, it leverages the Scheme to achieve that outcome in one fashion or another. 20. It certain cases, State Farm fraudulently denies the claim vis-a vis the roof outright. In other cases, State Farm fraudulently depresses the amount it agrees to pay below the policy deductible, thereby avoiding payment. In practically each case, State Farm manipulates its damage estimate to ignore patent wind, hail, and/or tornado damage to the insured property to avoid payments. 3. The Scheme Turns on Hidden, Bad-Faith Claims Handling Tactics 21. To justify its unlawful denials of valid claims and conceal the Scheme, State Farm’s Scheme employs a series of bad-faith claims-handling tactics. These tactics derived from the WHMET’s work, especially the HAAG7 training it recommended. They include, but are not limited to, the following: 7 State Farm’s use of HAAG to train its claims handling personnel to deny claims is particularly insidious. In Watkins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., an Oklahoma jury unanimously found that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) hired Haag Engineering, a Texas 22. State Farm employs a hidden, narrow definition (as well as restrictive claims handling protocols) for hail damage. This allows State Farm adjusters to deny claims even when their loss inspection clearly shows hail damage to the insured roof. State Farm’s narrow and limited definition is absent from the four corners of the policy and hidden from the insured until State Farm uses it to deny a valid claim. State Farm’s captive agents (including Richey here) are fully aware of the narrow and limited definition, this critical disclosure is concealed, and State Farm’s insureds are wholly unaware of coverage limitations until they suffer a loss, file a claim, and receive a denial. It is only when the insured becomes the latest victim of State Farm’s Scheme that the insured learns of State Farm’s internal limitations to its coverage regarding hail damage. This is precisely what happened to Plaintiffs. 23. State Farm’s adjusters misattribute damage to non-covered causes of loss. Most often (including the Insured Properties at issue here), State Farm blames the structural engineering firm, to survey damage in Oklahoma and produce biased reports in favor of State Farm following the May 3, 1999, tornados. The jury found that Haag Engineering surveyed the damage in Oklahoma with a pretextual basis for denying claims and wrote “cookie cutter” reports concluding that the tornados produced no structural damage. Instead, the reports concluded that poor construction caused the cracked foundations and moving bricks. Because the jury found State Farm’s conduct willful and malicious, the jury awarded the plaintiff’s actual and punitive damages. See Watkins, No. CJ-2000-303; see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons, 963 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex. 1998); State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau, 951 S.W.2d 444, 448 (Tex. 1997). Even after the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling that State Farm’s use of Haag Engineering was fraudulent and bad faith conduct, State Farm nevertheless subsequently used Haag Engineering in Oklahoma. Then, State Farm again contracted with Haag Engineering to survey damage on the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This resulted in substantial claims settlements under both the False Claims Act and state law from both State Farm and HAAG. To paper its own punishment, State Farm issued an internal moratorium on its own use of HAAG engineering services, which remains in place today. To skirt that moratorium, State Farm hired HAAG’s educational division to train its claims handlers to perpetuate their joint venture in fraud. wind, hail, and/or storm damage on some non-covered cause of loss. State Farm’s adjusters find damage to the insured property but attribute that damage to a non-covered cause of loss—most commonly, “wear and tear,” “pre-existing damage,” or “manufacturer defect.” This finding flies in the face of Defendants’ representations and/or material omissions, which are inherent to the act of procuring, binding, and renewing coverage.8 Critically, Defendants expressly and/or impliedly represent that the Insured Property qualifies for the replacement cost coverage bound by virtue of the act of binding the coverage. Thus, if the roof suffered from a manufacturer defect, pre-existing damage, or substantial wear and tear, the roof may not qualify for coverage (whether at inception or annual renewal). This should be detected by Defendants’ inspection and inform some change in coverage. These defects cannot accrue or appear by fiat in the mere months between the most recent policy renewal and the date of loss. It is, at best, duplicitous for Defendants to, on one hand, tell the insured that the property fully qualifies under State Farm’s underwriting rules for the replacement cost coverage bound and then, with the other, tell the insured that it in fact did not. This is exemplary ambush claims-handling and prima facie bad faith. 24. State Farm Revoked Adjuster Authority to Pay for Total Roof Replacements. The Wind/Hail Focus Initiative dictates that State Farm’s adjusters cannot approve a full roof replacement without review and approval from upper management at 8 As here, this is often stated plainly on State Farm’s denial letter. In other instances, the adjuster simply fails to acknowledge the damage at all. Yet there is, indeed, patent wind- and/or hailstorm damage, such that the insured was compelled to file the claim. The adjuster simply fails to record it as a covered cause of loss—thereby implying that the damage was caused by some other, non-covered cause. State Farm. Here, even though Mr. Reynolds verbally approved the full roof replacement, he was ostensibly overruled by his Team Manager in accordance with the Scheme. This rule from State Farm’s internal wind/hail claims handling guidelines is referred to as “Team Manager Review” and/or “Managerial Review.” Team Manager Review almost always results in a denial of a full roof replacement despite significant evidence to the contrary, (just as in Plaintiffs’ claim). In fact, those adjusters who order too many roof damage payments are often punished through additional skills training, demotion, etc. Tellingly, no such approval is needed for the same adjusters to outright deny a full roof replacement onsite; they need not elevate the claim to upper management for further review and consideration of a denial. 25. State Farm ignores applicable building codes and manufacturer directions, thereby creating a safety risk for its insureds. For example, State Farm ignored Oklahoma Code, specifically 2018 IRC Section R903.1, which requires that roof decks be covered with approved materials, properly secured, and installed according to code and manufacturer instructions to protect the structure from weather. “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer’s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” It ensures roof assemblies are designed to prevent water entry through joints, penetrations, and intersections. In doing so, State Farm directly violated the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner’s Bulletin PC 2016-02 and related Special Notice, which advises State Farm as follows: 'Companies are instructed that for purposes of providing additional coverages, as an exception to the ordinance or law exclusion, you shall consider all building codes as being strictly enforced.' Therefore, additional coverage for increased costs incurred due to building code-related items, if applicable, should be applied regardless of whether the building code is actively enforced by local authorities.9 The factual details surrounding this misrepresentation and violation are explained in detail below. 26. Each of these aforementioned bad-faith claims handling tactics perpetuates the Scheme and allows State Farm to deny valid property insurance claims. State Farm trains its claims handling personnel to implement these tactics. State Farm trains its captive agents (like Richey) to market, sell, and bind coverage in a way that allows the Scheme to carry forward undetected. 27. The manner in which State Farm mishandled Plaintiffs’ Claim illustrates State Farm’s Scheme and clearly demonstrates State Farm’s bad faith: a. Plaintiffs’ Insured Property was originally constructed in 2002. In 2014, following tornado-related damage in 2013, Mrs. Frazier’s roof was replaced with Owens Corning WeatherGuard Class 4 shingles. b. Plaintiffs’ Insured Property was severely damaged by a historic storm that occurred on approximately March 14, 2025. The storm caused substantial damage to Plaintiffs’ roof, including by ripping shingles from their fixed position off the roof. The following image shows roof shingles ripped from Plaintiffs’ roof. 9 https://www.oid.ok.gov/special-notice-02-2025/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2026). Plaintiff Sheila Frazier personally observed the storm ripping shingles from her roof.  c. Plaintiffs filed a claim with State Farm for the storm damage. d. Plaintiffs learned that the WeatherGuard shingles installed in 2014 had been discontinued by Owens Corning. Plaintiff Sheila Frazier obtained documentation confirming that her shingles were discontinued and that Owens Corning advised that the newer Duration Storm shingles were not compatible with WeatherGuard shingles and should not be mixed. e. On approximately May 12, 2025, State Farm dispatched its adjuster, Keannon Bailey, to inspect the Insured Property. In accord with the Scheme, Bailey manipulated his estimate of Plaintiffs’ damages to fall below Plaintiffs’ deductible. f. During Bailey’s pretextual inspection, Mrs. Frazier informed Bailey that the shingles were discontinued. Mr. Bailey responded that Mrs. Frazier “could fight” him but would “not win.” The comment was threatening and unprofessional, to say the least. "You can fight me on this, but you’re not gonna win." Ostensibly, Bailey knew he was executing State Farm’s Scheme according to his training and directive, and State Farm would reward him for doing so. g. On approximately July 10, 2025, Mrs. Frazier contacted State Farm’s claims department and spoke with an adjuster identified as Javier. Mrs. Frazier informed him that her shingles were discontinued and that she possessed a letter from Owens Corning stating that Duration Storm shingles were not compatible with WeatherGuard shingles and should not be mixed. Javier acknowledged awareness of the Owens Corning letter but stated that State Farm refused to consider that letter vis-à-vis her coverage and her claim. He stated the Policy did not owe for matching or warranty concerns. He instructed Mrs. Frazier to have her contractor remove a shingle and place it on her porch for inspection, after which State Farm would identify a similar shingle. h. Mrs. Frazier complied and removed a shingle for State Farm’s inspection, resulting in the need for an additional patch on her roof. Thereafter, State Farm adjuster Pierre Reynolds contacted Mrs. Frazier and advised that State Farm had identified a shingle for repair: Owens Corning Duration Storm in the color Driftwood. Mr. Reynolds informed Mrs. Frazier where the shingle could be purchased. i. On July 22, 2025, Mrs. Frazier uploaded to State Farm’s claims hub documentation confirming that her existing shingles were WeatherGuard shingles. She also uploaded the Owens Corning letter expressly stating that Duration Storm shingles are not compatible with WeatherGuard shingles and should never be mixed. j. Beginning approximately August 8, 2025, Mrs. Frazier made repeated written requests through the State Farm claims hub for (1) her complete claim file and (2) written confirmation of the name of the shingle State Farm was directing her to use for repairs. She made additional written requests on August 12, August 13, August 15, August 22, and September 15, 2025. Despite these requests, State Farm did not provide written confirmation of the shingle specification during that time. k. Mrs. Frazier went to Richey’s office after State Farm repeatedly refused to provide her with the name of the shingle at issue. She did so because *State Farm’s website and claims portal specifically instructs its insureds to contact their agent if they have difficulty*. She told Richey that State Farm would not provide her with that information. Richey told Mrs. Frazier that she had worked in claims for some time, had been on “both sides”, and understood the process clearly. Nevertheless, Richey was dismissive; “just call them and ask them.” Mrs. Frazier told Richey she had attempted to do so several times, and Richey again dismissed her: "there's no reason for them to withhold that information from you." Mrs. Frazier agreed, despite being astounded at Richey's lack of assistance. Richey then told Mrs. Frazier she ought to be more concerned with Owens Corning than with State Farm. It is clear Richey was exercising her training from State Farm to "artfully" redirect Plaintiffs from their focus on State Farm to another. 1. Richey then called Mrs. Frazier and informed her that State Farm was refusing to provide her the relevant information as it was "in house only." During phone conversations, Reynolds also advised Mrs. Frazier that the shingle information was internal and could not be provided in writing. Indeed, Plaintiffs are forced to file a complaint with the OID and, subsequently, this lawsuit, in part to obtain clear information from State Farm. Tellingly, this directly contradicts State Farm’s justification for the lack of communication to the Oklahoma Insurance Department: [Regarding Ms. Frazier's concern of continually asking for the shingle information in writing, we misinterpreted what was being asked of us. We missed the opportunity to provide this information to Ms. Frazier in a letter from us. Accordingly, we have now attached a copy of this information and apologize for the oversight.] Mrs. Frazier has received no such apology for what was clearly a policy-based decision, not an oversight—State Farm’s hollow apologies to the OID, notwithstanding. Moreover, on November 18, 2025, State Farm informed the OID that the information had been provided to the policyholder through its portal, but Plaintiffs remain unable to access such information through the portal. m. It is axiomatic that an insurance company, acting in accord with its duty of good faith and fair dealing, cannot hide information from its insureds relevant to its denial of a claim. Yet this is how State Farm acted here, and it exemplifies the way State Farm weaponizes its Scheme against insureds like Plaintiffs. n. Reynolds further represented that he would mail a “user-friendly” version of the information and upload it to the claims hub. Mrs. Frazier did not receive such a letter by mail, and no such document appeared on the claims hub at that time. It was not until Mrs. Frazier complained to the OID that State Farm admitted it failed to provide this information. o. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ roofing contractor, Trey Smiley, contacted State Farm and requested a full roof replacement due to the incompatibility of shingles. Mr. Smiley also provided written notice that mixing Duration Storm shingles with WeatherGuard shingles would violate manufacturer guidelines and constitute a violation of Oklahoma Code, specifically 2018 IRC Section R903.1. Smiley provided State Farm with this information. p. The Chief Building Inspector for Oklahoma City confirmed to Plaintiff Sheila Frazier on December 5, 2025 that repairs must conform to the manufacturer’s specifications when they are more stringent than applicable building codes: q. State Farm denied Plaintiffs’ request for a total roof replacement in furtherance of its Scheme. Mrs. Frazier requested written confirmation of the denial and the reasons for it. However, she did not receive a written denial letter explaining the basis for the denial. r. On September 15, 2025, she again requested written confirmation of the denial and clarification regarding how she was to repair her roof without a compatible shingle. s. On September 25, 2025, Mr. Smiley received a call from Mr. Reynolds indicating that his supervisor had denied the full replacement. Reynolds had stated he would document the claim as requiring a full roof replacement, ostensibly recognizing that the roof was, in fact, totaled. He confirmed he had provided all documentation to his supervisor, who reviewed it, and denied the claim. No written explanation of the denial was provided to Mrs. Frazier. Mrs. Frazier pressed Reynolds for an answer as to why, and he avoided providing one and pointed merely to his supervisor’s decision. t. Even though Mr. Reynolds verbally approved the full roof replacement, he was ostensibly overruled by his Team Manager in accordance with the Scheme. u. Mrs. Frazier asked Reynolds over the phone if he—Reynolds—would put the shingle on his roof knowing it was incompatible. Reynolds responded that “if it was my roof, personally, off the record, I wouldn’t do that.” It is wholly counter to the duty of good faith and fair dealing that a State Farm adjuster should ever feel compelled to hedge comments to an insured as “off the record.” v. Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the OID regarding State Farm’s fraudulent conduct and pretextual denial of the Claim. In response to the OID investigation, State Farm notified the OID in part as follows on December 12, 2025: [Following a thorough review, we have identified wind damage to one small front-facing slope on the far left side of the structure. Consequently, we have estimated the replacement of twenty shingles and some ridge caps in the affected area. While we did identify areas of wear, tear, and deterioration, we did not find any other storm-related damage to the remaining shingles on the roof. Based on these findings, our estimate is deemed appropriate for the damage identified.] In accordance with the Scheme, State Farm wrongfully and arbitrarily blamed the storm damage to Plaintiffs’ roof on “wear, tear, and deterioration.” w. Mrs. Frazier called Richey and told Richey that Plaintiffs needed a second inspection from State Farm as well as an explanation in writing for the claim denial (which State Farm had not provided). Mrs. Frazier called Richey because no one from State Farm would return Mrs. Frazier’s calls and requests. Richey agreed to contact State Farm on Plaintiffs’ behalf. Finally, Team Manager Tony Lochner contacted Mrs. Frazier. Mrs. Frazier again asked for a written explanation of the denial and a second inspection. Lochner ignored the request for the second inspection. He reiterated State Farm’s refusal to pay the claim. Mrs. Frazier again asked for a written explanation, and Locher assured Mrs. Frazier he would provide one. On November 18, 2025, State Farm informed the OID by letter in part as follows: TM Lochner reiterated that the repairs outlined in our estimate do not violate building code and requested CS Reynolds send Ms. Fraizer a letter outlining our coverage determination in writing, which was provided. This is false; to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no such letter was provided to Plaintiffs until Plaintiffs filed their complaint with the OID and the OID initiated its investigation. x. During the pendency of the OID investigation, State Farm repeatedly refused to conduct a second inspection of the Insured Property. Reynolds told Mrs. Frazier that there had been no change, so there was no need for a second inspection. y. During the pendency of the claim, State Farm cancelled Plaintiffs’ coverage in a letter dated November 26, 2025 with an effective date of January 1, 2026. z. Ostensibly recognizing the risk in cancelling an insured while under OID investigation, State Farm quickly backtracked its decision in a letter dated December 11, 2025: Please disregard our letter to you advising we were not continuing your coverage. After further review, we have decided to continue with no lapse in coverage. Tellingly, it informed the OID of the same on December 11, 2025. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns filed with the Oklahoma Insurance Department by Sheila Frazier. We look forward to addressing the questions regarding the Homeowners nonrenewal. State Farm Fire Underwriting reinstated the risk as of December 8, 2025 for the January 1, 2026 renewal. A copy of the Reinstatement Notice has been attached for review. This underscores State Farm’s motivation to remain in the regulator’s good graces (despite its total disregard for its duty of good faith owed to Plaintiffs). Nevertheless, State Farm forced Plaintiffs to endure the stress and humiliation of having their coverage canceled. Plaintiffs elected to cancel their coverage and move their coverage to another insurer on account of State Farm’s gross misconduct. aa. On February 26, 2026, Reynolds emailed Mrs. Frazier as follows: As part of the repair process for your roof, we have identified the roofing shingle materials that are currently available for use on your property. The available options are available in the guide above. These materials are comparable in quality and specifications and meet the requirements for completing the repair properly. Please review the available options and let us know if you have a preference so we can proceed accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the materials or would like additional information about any of the options listed, please feel free to contact me. This misrepresentation directly contradicts manufacturer instructions and applicable building codes. bb. Eventually, Reynolds informed Plaintiffs that they would dispatch another adjuster to pull a second shingle from the roof. Nothing has come of this second exercise. cc. As a result of the above-described events, Plaintiffs’ roof remains severely damaged with tarp and patching in multiple areas. State Farm has directed Plaintiffs to repair the roof using shingles that Owens Corning has stated are not compatible with her existing shingles. dd. Plaintiffs estimate the total covered, unpaid cost to replace the Insured Property Roof to exceed $50,000. To date, State Farm has wrongfully withheld the full replacement cost benefits that Plaintiffs are rightfully entitled to under the Policy. ee. It is a violation of Oklahoma’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act to force an insured to file a lawsuit to recover benefits owed under the Policy. Tellingly, on March 10, the Oklahoma Department of Insurance informed Plaintiffs as follows: [The company is standing firm in its position that Durastorm is the closest match to the Weather Guard shingle. We are waiting for a legal review on this matter, so our file is pending. If they continue to stand firm in their position, you may have to seek litigation to resolve the dispute.] The “company”—State Farm, is forcing Plaintiffs to file suit to recovery benefits owed under the Policy in violation of Oklahoma law. ff. Richey advanced the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative and resultant Scheme by refusing to disclose to Plaintiffs at any time the Agent’s knowledge of State Farm’s secretive bad faith tactics and “hail damage” definition that is absent from the Policy. Further, Richey’s underwriting failures in failing to inspect the Insured Property at any time and/or failing to verify the condition of the Insured Property allowed State Farm to ambush Plaintiffs with a denial based on pre-existing damage (here, wear, tear, and deterioration) and non-covered causes of loss. Richey never disclosed to Plaintiffs the roof had pre-existing damage or other defects that would negate full replacement cost coverage upon the submission of a valid claim. When confronted with the ambush denial, Richey tried to deflect blame to Owens Corning away from State Farm—all in furtherance of State Farm’s Scheme. C. State Farm’s Captive Agents Anchor the Scheme. 28. State Farm’s Scheme, in Plaintiffs’ case, began with Richey. In fact, in each instance, State Farm’s Scheme begins with its captive agents (including Richey), who market, sell, procure, and bind (whether at inception and/or renewal10) State Farm homeowners’ insurance to the insured. 29. In doing so, Richey expressly and/or impliedly represented (i) the Insured property met State Farm’s underwriting rules, guidelines, and requirements for the coverage purportedly bound, and (ii) any value (and thus coverage limits) Richey calculated for the Insured Property accurately reflected (at least) 100% of the Insured Property’s value—that is, all components of the insured property are fully covered. Here, in summary and as explained in detail below, Richey expressly told Plaintiff Sheila Frazier that the coverage she procured for Plaintiffs was full replacement cost coverage. 10 Under Oklahoma law, each annual issuance of the policy at issue involves each of these acts, whether it be the inception of coverage in the first instance or the subsequent renewal thereof. Therefore, even an agent who renews coverage engages in these acts. 1. State Farm Captive Agents (like Richey) Owe Underwriting and Procurement Duties 30. Richey’s role creates key legal duties, which Richey (just like any State Farm captive agent) owes to the insured: Richey must always a. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to procure coverage as the insured requested (and as Richey promised) that meets the insured’s stated needs; b. speak accurately and truthfully when she chooses to speak; and c. fully disclose all material information to Plaintiffs State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics, State Farm’s reliance on undisclosed definitions and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about State Farm’s handling of wind and hailstorm claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision.11 31. Moreover, State Farm considers Richey to be the first line of its underwriting division and, thereby, a steward and arbitrator of its underwriting guidelines, criteria, and rules vis-à-vis whether a property qualifies for coverage bound. In fact, State Farm’s underwriting guidelines state: To assure continued financial stability and competitive rates, the agent and underwriter must carefully select the business we write. The business must 11 Additionally, under Oklahoma law, a duty to speak may arise from a partial disclosure. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Brown Flight Rental One Corp., 24 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 1994) (the law imposes a duty to speak from a partial disclosure because “the speaker is under a duty to say nothing or to tell the whole truth” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Uptegraft v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 764 P.2d 1350,1353-54 (Okla. 1988) (“Although a party may keep absolute silence and violate no rule of equity, yet, if he volunteers to speak and to convey information which may influence the conduct of the other party, he is bound to disclose the whole truth.”); see also Ervin v. Herb Weaver Ins. Agency, Inc., 2022 WL 22839581 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2022) (Palk, D.J.). be properly insured to value, must have an acceptable loss history, be well maintained, have a roof in good repair, and must meet all the requirements outlined in this guide.12 32. Richey therefore plays a crucial role in the Scheme by and through the marketing, procurement, sale, and binding of State Farm’s insurance products to the insured with the warranty that the property in question fully meets State Farm’s underwriting requirements. 33. State Farm’s captive agents (like Richey) should meet these duties (in part) maintaining up-to-date information about the condition of the property to be insured and comparing that to State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, criteria, and rules upon each renewal of coverage.13 Indeed, not all buildings automatically qualify for State Farm’s homeowners policies (according to State Farm underwriting rules)—only those which meet those internal underwriting rules constitute a “good risk” for State Farm to insure. This was confirmed by State Farm’s corporate designee for underwriting, Richard Hsiung, in 2022: It that correct? Is that still State Farm’s position, that risks with damage or deteriorated roofs are unacceptable? Mr. Hsiung: Yes. 12 Excerpt from Underwriting Guidance – Homeowners – Underwriting Basics at 1 (located in the public record as Exhibit 10 to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in Vance v. State Farm, 24-CIV-449-SLP, ECF No. 7-10 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024). 13 The most logical way to do so would be an in-person inspection of the Insured Property prior to the inception of coverage and routinely thereafter to verify the condition and attributes of the Insured Property for the purposes of (a) the agent’s accurate calculation of any insurance values and (b) the agent’s accurate representation that the Insured Property qualifies for coverage under State Farm’s guidelines. Since each renewal is a new sale and contract, State Farm captive agents should maintain a baseline of the property’s condition throughout the insurance relationship. 34. It is Richey—who confirms whether these rules are met with regard to Plaintiffs’ Insured Property. Richey can only make these representations in good faith if he verified the property’s condition. 35. Richey’s role in procuring, selling, and binding Plaintiff’s Policy was crucial to the Scheme: a. Sheila Frazier and her husband built the Insured Property in approximately 2002. In 2014, following tornado-related damage in 2013, the roof was replaced with Owens Corning WeatherGuard Class 4 shingles. Several years later, approximately three years before the March 2025 loss, Mrs. Frazier transitioned coverage for the Insured Property to State Farm and selected Vicky Richey to procure the coverage. b. When Mrs. Frazier moved coverage to State Farm, she did so intentionally and with specific coverage concerns in mind. She had previously experienced a situation with Liberty Mutual in which her roof coverage had converted from replacement cost to actual cash value after the roof reached a certain age, without her appreciating the change at renewal. When tornado-related damage occurred, she discovered she was responsible for a significant out-of-pocket amount because the roof was no longer insured at full replacement cost. 14 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, Neph v. State Farm, 5:25-cv-00774-SLP (W.D. Okla.) ECF No. 13-2: Depo. of State Farm Corporate Designee Hsiung (Aug. 9, 2022), Stelling v. State Farm, CJ-2020-329, at 185:20-24. c. That experience led Mrs. Frazier to expressly request that her new State Farm policy provide full replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property roof. d. Mrs. Frazier explained to Richey that she did not want to “find out later” that she would have to pay anything beyond the Policy deductible in the event of a roof loss. She specifically requested full replacement cost coverage and disclaimed actual cash value treatment. e. Richey expressly assured Mrs. Frazier that the Policy would provide full replacement cost coverage and that the roof would be covered accordingly. f. Plaintiffs relied on these representations in moving coverage to State Farm and then asking Richey to procure full replacement cost coverage on newly acquired Insured Properties. g. Even Richey’s marketing is designed to result in such reliance. For example, she markets herself on her State Farm website as having both Chartered Financial Consultant (“ChFC”) from The American College of Financial Services and the Chartered Life Underwriter (“CLU”) program designations.15 These are intended to demonstrate Richey’s expertise in the field, and she markets herself with that designation to encourage insureds to rely upon that expertise. Her website 15 CLU is a premier professional credential for insurance and estate planning specialists, focusing on risk management, life insurance law, and complex financial planning. Administered by The American College of Financial Services, it requires passing course work, demonstrating work experience, and adherence to a strict code of ethics. CHFC is an advanced professional designation for financial planners requiring similar commitments. assures her clients (like Plaintiffs) that she will back-fill any lack of understanding about insurance products for them: At the Vicky Richey Agency, my team and I operate from the core value that my business was established upon in 1999. That core value is to help individuals with all of their insurance and financial needs, regardless of your level of experience with those products or needs.16 36. Thus, at all relevant times, Richey and State Farm either knew or should have known of any material defect, pre-existing damage, or other condition(s) that would exclude the Insured Property from coverage in violation of State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, rules, and criteria. And, accordingly, if such defect actually existed and was the legitimate basis for the claim denial, Richey and State Farm should have disclosed to Plaintiffs such defect when the Policy issued and/or renewed. In fact, Richey told Plaintiff Sheila Frazier she had worked for claims handling, had seen “both sides”, and knew how the claims handing process worked. 2. Richey’s Breach of Duty Enabled the Scheme. 37. State Farm’s captive agents—like Richey—practically never exercise the requisite level of care, skill, and diligence in verifying the condition of the property against State Farm’s underwriting guidelines. Yet, Richey markets, sells, procures, and binds State Farm coverage to Plaintiffs nonetheless. While this act inherently represents to the insured in each instance that the property in question qualifies for the insurance to be bound and meets the underwriting guidelines governing such coverage, in almost every instance of the Scheme, the agent lacks all practical bases to make such an inherent representation in 16 www.vickyrichey.com (last visited Feb. 27, 2026). good faith. Nor does the agent maintain up-to-date information about the insured property and use that information to inform coverage upon renewal. 38. The policy is a contract—one that obligates State Farm to indemnify its insured upon the occurrence of a covered loss. State Farm’s issuance of policy rests on the agent’s certification of the property’s qualifications under State Farm underwriting guidelines, criteria, and rules—a critical representation to both State Farm and the insured: namely, that the property identified in the policy declarations meets the criteria for the coverage prescribed at the time of inception or renewal for which the agent is responsible.17 Consequently, Richey was responsible for these representations in this case. State Farm’s captive agent further represents, at the very least impliedly through the act of selling, procuring, and binding coverage (and, in certain instances, expressly) and/or inherently represents that no condition, pre-existing damage, deterioration, wear-and-tear, or other defect will operate to negate the property’s eligibility for coverage under the policy in the event of a loss. Richey acted accordingly here. 39. Most captive State Farm agents (including Richey) have binding authority. That means they instruct State Farm to issue coverage to the insured without State Farm’s prior approval. By virtue of the act of doing so, the agent certifies and represents to both State Farm and the insured that the property meets State Farm’s underwriting rules and criteria and is therefore eligible for coverage. This representation is repeated each time the 17 This must be true, for the issuance of coverage upon a property that does not qualify at the time would constitute an illusory coverage violation, as well as a violation of State Farm’s own underwriting rules. policy renews, such that the agent represents the property’s eligibility (and, thereby, the absence of any condition that would negate that eligibility), each policy year upon renewal. Richey repeated this representation accordingly in this instance to Plaintiffs (and, thereby, State Farm). 40. If Richey were to find the property fails to quality for coverage (as defined by State Farm’s underwriting rules) at any point in the insurance relationship (e.g., the roof is too old, too worn, in poor condition, or otherwise affected by pre-existing damage), Richey owes an independent duty to report the same to both the insured and to State Farm. This should result in reduction, denial, or cancellation of the insured’s coverage and impact the nature of “100% insurance to value” vis-à-vis the insured property. 41. Yet, critically, State Farm’s adjusters denied Plaintiffs’ Claims on the basis of wear, tear, and/or deterioration. If this is actually true, then Richey took no reasonable care, skill, or diligence to verify the accuracy of the representation that the Insured Property fully qualified for State Farm coverage at 100% insurance to value. Moreover: a. Neither Richey nor State Farm ever disclosed to Plaintiffs that any Insured Property was ineligible under State Farm’s underwriting guidelines for the requested coverage for any reason. b. Regardless of whether an inspection occurred, neither Richey nor State Farm took reasonable care, skill, and diligence in maintaining a current understanding of the Insured Property’s condition throughout the course of renewal. c. Neither Richey nor State Farm ever advised Plaintiffs of any defect, pre-existing damage, or other conditions that would exclude the Insured Property under State Farm’s underwriting rules from coverage.\(^{18}\) d. Richey expressly and/or inherently represented to Plaintiffs that the property met State Farm’s underwriting guidelines and qualified for the coverage Agent bound. e. Neither Richey nor State Farm disclosed to Plaintiffs that State Farm had already pre-ordained the denial of any claim for roof damage. 42. Richey marketed, sold, procured, and bound a policy purporting to provide coverage to Plaintiffs, nonetheless. Richey’s blind misrepresentation was a necessary furtherance of the Scheme; State Farm’s agents cannot bind a policy without first representing the property qualifies for coverage. State Farm provides training to its captive agents in accordance with the Scheme, and each State Farm captive agent relies on this *uniform training* based on and/or derived from HAAG to make the same or similar representations that each Insured Property is eligible for the coverage sought under the same State Farm underwriting rules. This uniformity allows State Farm to effectuate its Scheme with consistency and makes Plaintiffs’ case an exemplary instance of the Scheme. 43. Given Richey’s purported expertise and specialized knowledge of insurance policies, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Richey for the same. \footnotetext{18 As explained above, had Agent identified any such condition, Agent would have been required to report the same to both Plaintiffs and State Farm and adjust coverage accordingly.} D. Richey's Knowledge of the Scheme 44. State Farm’s captive agents (like Richey) are aware of the Scheme. They are aware of the practical improbability that State Farm will pay a roof claim by the insured. They are aware that, pursuant to the Scheme, State Farm will drum up a justification for outright denial of the claim or for limiting the damage to an amount under the deductible resulting in no payment, or sometimes just above the deductible resulting in a low-ball payment. 45. State Farm’s captive agents (like Richey) are aware State Farm achieves this through an array of bad faith tactics. Further, State Farm agents (like Richey) are aware of (and fail to disclose) other bad faith claims handling tactics inherent to State Farm’s Scheme. These tactics are material to an insured when purchasing an insurance policy; they include State Farm’s pre-ordained attribution of covered damage to roofs to some non-covered cause (e.g., wear and tear, granular loss, deterioration, or defect). 46. Further, State Farm agents (like Richey) are aware of (and fail to disclose) the ways State Farm adjusters further the Scheme. This includes drafting sham estimates blaming patent wind- and hail-storm damage to non-covered causes to avoid paying for roof replacements. In other instances, State Farm adjusters further the Scheme by manipulating the insured’s date of loss to reflect dates on which no hail was detected in the area. State Farm’s agents (like Richey) are fully aware of these bad faith tactics (e.g., from repeated customer complaints and cross-agent back chatter), yet they fail to disclose this (and other) material information about State Farm’s Scheme in violation of duties owed to the insured. 47. Richey knew State Farm purposefully uses hidden definitions, such as "functional damage" as defined by State Farm’s partner-in-fraud HAAG Engineering, of wind- and/or hailstorm damage to deny claims, along with other bad faith tactics described herein, but failed to disclose these to insureds in the Policy or at any point prior to claims adjustment. The “functional damage” definition State Farm uses for hail damage is contained nowhere in State Farm’s homeowners insurance policies. 48. Neither Richey nor State Farm ever advised Plaintiffs of State Farm’s Scheme, including but not limited to State Farm’s internal and clandestine definitions of “hail damage,” “wear and tear,” “granular loss,” “functional damage,” etc. 49. Neither Richey nor State Farm disclosed to Plaintiffs the existence of the Scheme, the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, or any aspects thereof. 50. State Farm’s agents (like Richey) are motivated to further the Scheme by carrot and stick. On information and belief, the carrot lies in State Farm’s agents’ compensation, which is based in some part on the ratio of losses deriving from policies the specific agent marketed, procured, sold, bound, and renewed. Thus, any corporate initiative designed to improve that loss ratio—e.g., State Farm’s Wind/Hail Focus Initiative and the resultant Scheme to reduce roof spend—only serves to increase the captive agents’ compensation. To this end, State Farm provides its captive agents (like Richey) comprehensive training in skillsets that help them advance the Scheme. 51. In fact, Richey’s complicity was underscored by her response to Mrs. Frazier’s request for help during State Farm’s claims mishandling. Mrs. Frazier asked 52. Non-confidential documents in the public record, such as Exhibit 6 attached to the August 14, 2023 response pleading in CJ-2021-1741,19 evidence the Scheme in action. A former State Farm adjuster testified under oath to how the agent’s determination of the condition of the roof at inception or renewal and subsequent denial for “wear and tear” or pre-existing damage are essential in State Farm’s denial of full roof replacements. The State Farm adjuster admitted under oath as follows: everyone on our team did not have any authority anymore to total roofs because **we were paying for too many roof claims** ... when I was told that it is not hail or it’s not new hail, to call it wear and tear to deny a claim, I felt – I felt bad ... I legitimately felt like there was some damage from hail, from new hail that I felt that the roof should be totaled, that I was told to deny the whole thing, and that – that was difficult. Discovery from State Farm filed in the public record reveals that State Farm captive agents are well aware of how hail claims are being adjusted. In Exhibit 6 to the June 14, 2023 pleading, a State Farm captive agent, David Hoffhines, sent the following email: I understand that you are not able to find hail on the date my insured has cell phone pics on? Can we discuss this please?? How do I tell my client that the hail damage marks that were uploaded to the file from contractor are invisible to claims reps and supervisors?? I know the growing trend is for SF to deny hail claims, I’m just curious how do I word this?? 53. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Petition in Intervention into another Scheme-focused case underscores State Farm agents’ knowledge of the Scheme: Captive agents knew, or at a minimum had reason to know, that State Farm was tightening internal claim standards and increasingly denying claims that would previously have been paid [...] Despite this 19 Available at https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2021-1741&cmid=3968060 (last visited Nov. 21, 2025). knowledge or reason to know, captive agents continued to sell and renew policies. Motion to Intervene, Hursh v. State Farm, No. 2025-2626 (Okla. Cty., Okla. Dec. 4, 2025). 54. State Farm’s Scheme has come under national scrutiny. Recently, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the Insurance Industry’s Natural Disaster Practices.\textsuperscript{20} For example, Nick Schroeder, a former licensed adjuster for State Farm and Allstate, testified to bad faith claims handling practices nearly identical to Plaintiffs’ allegations here: More commonly, these changes were simply excluding hail-damaged shingles due to age or wear. In one case involving policyholders Susan and Dennis Carter, I was instructed to deny shingle damage as wear and tear despite visible hail impact marks consistent with adjacent dented metal. Although I provided a hail report confirming activity near the property on the reported date of loss, the claim was reassigned after I refused to amend the estimate to exclude hail damage.\textsuperscript{21} The wealth of evidence here, as well as what Plaintiffs know will be revealed through discovery, establishes a sinister Scheme by State Farm to defraud insureds such as Plaintiffs. 55. State Farm has continually asserted a blanket disclaimer of its captive agents’ underwriting duties and often states agents are not required to inform insureds about the condition of their home and adjust their coverage accordingly. However, State Farm’s own underwriting reviews and similar underwriting documents have revealed that State farm \footnotetext{20 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs2VKoQPvxY (last visited Nov. 21, 2025).} \footnotetext{21 Examining the Insurance Industry’s Claims Practices Following Recent Natural Disasters - Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/dmdcc/hearings/examining-the-insurance-industrys-claims-practices-following-recent-natural-disasters/ (last visited Nov. 21, 2025).} captive agents are in fact tied to underwriting. State Farm captive agents regularly inform insureds about corrective measures required following roof damage to remain eligible for coverage—or else coverage will be reduced or even cancelled. 56. For example, State Farm instructs its insureds to "Check with your agent" with questions about “Home + Property Claims” settlements.\(^{22}\) Moreover, State Farm issued the following underwriting notice to one of its insureds and advised them of underwriting requirements that needed to be fulfilled to reduce the risk of additional damage to the roof. The notice instructs the insured to contact *their State Farm agent* regarding such requirements: \footnotetext{22 https://www.statefarm.com/claims/settling-claim (last visited Mar. 1, 2026).} Important Notice On behalf of State Farm, a representative from a survey company visited your home to obtain additional underwriting information. We believe there are positive measures that should be taken to reduce the risk for loss. The following underwriting requirement(s) must be completed: Replace all boarded, broken or cracked glass in doors and/or windows to reduce the risk of injury or property damage. To reduce the risk of property and liability losses, regularly maintain the exterior of the property. Particular attention needs to be given to the removal of: - miscellaneous personal property. To reduce the risk of additional damage to the roof and/or interior water damage, the roof on the dwelling must be replaced as evidenced by the deteriorated shingles with granule loss. Have a roofing contractor complete the work. Eligible roofing material must be used when roof covering is being replaced. Consult with your agent for additional information on eligible roof types. The outlined requirement(s) present(s) an increase in hazard. Your cooperation with the above underwriting requirement(s) is appreciated. Please provide your agent documentation confirming the underwriting requirement(s) outlined above has been met. This policy will be set to non-renew effective October 21, 2025, unless verification is received. NOTE: The requirement(s) is made solely to help reduce the potential for future losses insured under your policy. However, it is not a guarantee against future losses. Any costs associated with the requirements outlined in this letter will be at your expense. If you have any questions regarding the requirement(s) or the timeline for completion, contact State Farm Agent Carla Holzrichter at (918) 367-5547. Thus, State Farm’s downplaying of agent underwriting responsibilities is a smokescreen. IV. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 57. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 58. At all relevant times, Defendants concealed material facts about State Farm’s Scheme from Plaintiffs. This concealment protected and perpetuated the Scheme, such that Plaintiffs had no way of ascertaining the Scheme or the accrual of any cause of action against Defendants. 59. The Scheme is an artifice, which State Farm designed to be hidden from its insureds' discovery. To wit, the inherent nature of State Farm's "good neighbor" promises—the duty of good faith and fair dealing State Farm owes its insureds—makes the artifice appear reliable. Insureds of ordinary prudence have no means of discovering the Scheme or their right to pursue recovery under the law. 60. Defendants' fraudulent concealment tolls the running of any applicable statute of limitations. V. COUNTS COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant State Farm 61. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 62. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance ("Policy") with State Farm to provide insurance for each Insured Property. Each respective Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 63. Plaintiffs provided proper and timely notice to State Farm of each Claim for damage arising from wind and/or hail, which caused significant damage to each Insured Property. 64. Each Policy’s coverage includes all fortuitous losses—which necessarily includes damage sustained by wind and/or hail. Each Policy’s language does not define, distinguish, or limit wind and/or hail damage in any fashion. 65. Plaintiffs complied in all material ways with the terms and conditions of each Policy. 66. State Farm breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of each Policy by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy and for wrongfully underpaying and denying portions of the Claim. 67. Consistent with State Farm’s pervasive, state-wide fraudulent Scheme described in detail throughout this Petition, State Farm actively, intentionally, and fraudulently concealed its Scheme to deny and/or underpay valid hail damage claims from Plaintiffs. This concealment is an inherent and important aspect of State Farm’s Scheme; as State Farm knew its Scheme would work only if it was kept secret. 68. As a result of State Farm’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs incurred damages. COUNT II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ("Bad Faith") Against Defendant State Farm 69. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 70. At all relevant times hereto, State Farm owed Plaintiffs a duty of good faith and fair dealing. 71. State Farm knowingly, intentionally, purposefully, wrongfully, and repeatedly breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in at least the following acts and omissions: a. knowingly engaging in a pattern and practice of i. denial-oriented investigations and claims-handling practices; ii. arbitrary and capricious claims handling; iii. denying and or underpaying indemnity payments owed to its first-party insureds on valid hail claims, including Plaintiffs; iv. withholding pertinent benefits, coverages, and other provisions due to Plaintiffs under the terms and conditions of the Policy in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§1250.1-1250.16; v. limiting and/or denying rights inherent to Plaintiffs; vi. recklessly disregarding said rights; vii. forcing Plaintiffs to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy; viii. manipulating claims to ensure damages fall below the policy deductible; ix. ignoring covered hail and windstorm damage; x. engaging in the pattern and practice of denying full roof replacement claims by asserting pre-existing damages and faulty installation without a pre-inception property inspection and/or without reasonably updated knowledge of the pre-loss condition of the subject property; xi. implementing the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative with the goal of reducing indemnity payments and deny full roof replacements to policyholders like the Plaintiffs on valid wind and hail claims; xii. utilizing biased third-party adjusters and/or engineers who further implement the Scheme outlined herein by consistently writing reports and estimates to deny full roof replacements on valid wind and hail claims; b. knowingly and purposely failing to i. maintain current information as to the condition of the Insured Property prior to the loss; ii. notify Plaintiffs, both prior to and at the inception and renewal of the Policy, of any pre-existing damage and other conditions that, if a claim were made, would limit coverage; iii. communicate all coverages and benefits applicable to the Claim; iv. perform a proper, timely, fair, and objective investigation of the Claim; v. pay the full and fair amount for the hail damage sustained to the Insured Property in accordance with the Policy's terms and conditions; vi. base its denial of the Claim on a valid, accurate, and reasonable grounds; vii. disclose the Scheme to Plaintiffs; and viii. disclose State Farm’s lack of compliance with its own underwriting guidelines, policies, and procedures in denying coverage to Plaintiffs. 72. State Farm’s conduct, as described above, constitutes bad faith and is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and its underlying insurance contract between the parties. State Farm has no reasonable basis in its refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiffs as per the Policy for damages caused by the wind and hail damage to the Insured Properties. 73. As a consequence of State Farm’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering that naturally results from an insurance failure. 74. State Farm’s conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of others. State Farm’s actions during the handling of the Claims demonstrate it acted intentionally and with malice and breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith. State Farm’s actions were consistent with an overall collective corporate goal of decreasing indemnity losses and thereby increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and denial of claims. The Scheme is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. State Farm’s Scheme demonstrates an enterprise-wide “pattern” theory of bad-faith conduct, liability for which is cognizable under Oklahoma law. See 12 Okla. Stat. § 2406; Vining v. Enter. Fin. Group, 148 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 1998) (where Plaintiffs sought to prove insured’s pattern and practice of bad faith conduct, evidence regarding other insureds was relevant to show defendant “acted in this case under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 (habit)"); see also Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., 2007 WL 4342082, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007); Markham v. National States Ins. Co., 122 Fed. Appx. 392 (10th Cir. 2004) (evidence of nation-wide rescission practice supported bad faith); Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162, 170 ("insurer's unreasonable treatment of Barnes was not an isolated incident, but the same or similar tactic was used by insurer repeatedly with other insureds"; awarding actual and punitive damages); Copeland v. Tela Corp., 2003 OK CIV APP 98, ¶ 3, 79 P.3d 1128 (confirming no abuse of discretion in allowing evidence of habit evidence under 12 O.S. § 2406 to show pattern and practice conduct.); Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 2012 WL 12863976 (W.D. Okla) (court holds that similar claims are relevant to Plaintiffs’ contract claim and the claim of bad faith in that they may show a pattern and practice). 75. State Farm enjoyed increased financial benefits and ill-gotten gains as a direct result of the wrongful conduct described above herein, which resulted in the injury to Plaintiffs. COUNT III: NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE Against Agent 76. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 77. At all material times hereto, Agent acted as State Farm’s agent and/or employee. State Farm is thereby vicariously liable for the Agent’s conduct. 78. In procuring the Policy, Agent had a duty to a. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to procure coverage as the insured requested that meets the insured’s stated needs; b. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in undertaking the calculation of any insurance values; c. speak accurately and truthfully by informing Plaintiffs of all coverages, advising Plaintiffs of the benefits, risks, limitations and exclusions thereof, and perform a reasonable inspection of the Insured Property prior to procuring the coverage and thereafter upon renewal to ensure no changes to the Policy were necessary or required; and d. Disclose all material facts with respect to the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 79. Agent breached Agent’s duty owed to Plaintiffs by: a. Knowingly and purposefully procuring and renewing i. Policies that failed to provided coverage as promised; ii. coverage deviating substantially and materially from that which Plaintiffs requested; iii. Policies that did not accurately reflect the replacement cost of the Insured Property (i.e., an amount that was 100% insurance to value as represented), despite Richey’s representations to the contrary; iv. Policies that, as written, did not provide coverage to fully restore the Insured Property back to its pre-loss condition, despite Richey’s representations to the contrary; b. Failing to i. follow and abide by State Farm’s underwriting policies/guidelines; ii. perform all necessary inspections of the Insured Property; iii. confirm the accuracy of the pre-filled information provided by State Farm’s estimating tool; iv. disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured Property; v. verify whether its representation to State Farm and Plaintiffs that the Insured Property (including the roof) was in good condition was accurate; vi. procure and renew a policy that provided the requested coverage for all fortuitous losses; and vii. disclose all material facts of the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 80. Plaintiffs relied on Agent’s representations to substantial detriment. 81. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 82. Defendants' conduct was intentional, willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of others and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. Defendants acted intentionally, and with malice and, breached duties owed to Plaintiffs. Defendants' actions were consistent with their overall collective corporate goal of increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and denial of claims. COUNT IV: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE MISREPRESENTATION Against All Defendants 83. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 84. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a legal and/or equitable duty to disclose all material facts that may arise out of their relationship as insurer and insured. 85. The concealment of a material fact which substantially affects another person constitutes fraud. Fraudulent representations may consist of half-truths calculated to deceive, and a representation literally true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false. Where the peculiar circumstances give rise to a duty on the part of one of the parties to a contract to disclose material facts and the party remains silent to his or her benefit and to the other party's detriment, the failure to speak constitutes fraud. 86. "[A] variety of facts and circumstances [] will give rise to a duty to disclose material facts." The Sutton Court reiterated that it has "consistently found the existence of the requisite circumstances, i.e., that which is necessary to create a duty to disclose, when the offending party created a false impression concerning material facts that was relied upon by the other party to his detriment and to the benefit of the offending party." Id. at 15. 87. A negligent or innocent misrepresentation or concealment for constructive fraud occurs when one who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. Negligent misrepresentation can also be based on a material omission. 88. Defendants owed specific duties to Plaintiffs. These duties are encompassed in State Farm's duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to its insureds, as well as specific duties Agent owed Plaintiffs—a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and skill in obtaining and accurately notifying of the nature and character of the insurance procured, the duty to use reasonable care, skill, and diligence, the duty to speak accurately and truthfully, and the duty to disclose all material facts relating to the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 89. Defendants breached this duty by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiffs, including (but not limited to) the following: a. Defendants misrepresented the Insured Property met all underwriting requirements, that all property inspections had occurred, and that any values Agent calculated were accurate and commensurate with reconstruction costs such that the coverage would fully restore, replace and/or repair the Insured Property (including its roof) in the event of a loss by a covered event. b. Defendants misrepresented that the Insured Property (and, specifically, its roof) was eligible for the coverage purportedly written and represented by Richey. c. Defendants failed to disclose that pre-existing issues with the Insured Property would either prevent issuance of the coverage or limit coverage for any damage during the Policy period. d. Agent misrepresented the procurement of the coverage Plaintiffs requested. e. Defendants misrepresented that the Policy covered all fortuitous losses and that weather-related damage (even cosmetic)—big or small—was fully covered under the Policy. f. Defendants failed to disclose all material information to an insured about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics, its reliance on undisclosed definitions and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about State Farm’s handling of wind and hailstorm claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision. g. Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiffs any of the above misrepresentations and/or omissions, any facts underlying these misrepresentations, or any material facts regarding the Scheme, including the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, implemented with the goal of reducing indemnity payments to policyholders like the Plaintiffs on valid wind and hail claims or State Farm’s use of biased third-party adjusters and/or engineers who further implement the Scheme outlined herein by consistently writing reports and estimates to deny full roof replacements on valid wind and hail claims. h. Agent failed to act as promised in filing claims on Plaintiffs’ behalf. 90. Nevertheless, Defendants sold and renewed coverage to Plaintiffs knowing Plaintiffs would rely on such material misrepresentations. 91. As a result of both State Farm and Agent’s breach of duty, each gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiffs to substantial detriment and prejudice. These breaches of duty induced Plaintiffs to accept, purchase, and renew the State Farm Policies. 92. State Farm and Agent’s misrepresentations constitute constructive fraud. 93. At all relevant times, Agent was State Farm’s employee and/or agent. 94. As a result of the Defendants’ constructive fraud, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 95. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of the rights of others, and/or was grossly negligent, and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, this Court should enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs against all Defendants for: (a) Monetary relief aggregating in excess of $250,000.00, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney fees and costs; (b) Punitive damages under Oklahoma law; (c) Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by any and/or all of the Defendants as a direct result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct; and (d) Prejudgment interests, costs and attorneys’ fees. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs ATTORNEYS' LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED