CJ-2026-922 - Cezary Nowowiejski v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. d/b/a Foremost Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: how many of us have looked up at a leaky ceiling after a storm and whispered, “Please, sweet baby insurance gods, don’t make me fight for this”? But Cezary Nowowiejski didn’t just get a leak—he got a full-on betrayal, allegedly, by his own insurance company, which now stands accused of denying him over $93,000 in rightful wind damage claims while possibly profiting from the denial. And not in some shady backroom deal, but through what the lawsuit claims is a profit-sharing program that rewards employees for underpaying claims. Yes, you read that right. It’s like if your mechanic got a bonus for pretending your brakes weren’t broken. Only this time, it’s a house, and the stakes are very wet.

So who is Cezary Nowowiejski? A homeowner in Tulsa, Oklahoma, living at 3817 South Union Avenue—just another guy trying to keep the elements outside where they belong. And who’s the villain in this story? Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., doing business as Foremost Insurance Company. That’s right—your friendly neighborhood insurer, the one with the ads featuring smiling families and maybe a barn owl or two, now allegedly playing hardball with a policyholder whose roof may have blown off in more ways than one. Nowowiejski had a policy—Policy No. 381-5012702470-02, because nothing says drama like an alphanumeric code—with Foremost, covering his dwelling, other structures, and personal property. And crucially, that policy covered wind damage. Because in Oklahoma, if you don’t have wind coverage, you might as well be living in a cardboard fort during tornado season.

Then came May 24, 2025—the date of loss, as officially assigned by Foremost. That day, or around it, something very windy happened. We don’t know if it was a derecho, a microburst, or just Oklahoma being Oklahoma, but the result was severe damage to Nowowiejski’s property. He did everything by the book: filed a timely claim, submitted documentation, followed procedure. Foremost acknowledged the claim—Claim No. 7009011445-1—and even admitted that water damage was involved and covered under the policy. But here’s where things get twisty: while water damage was accepted, Foremost allegedly denied that wind caused the damage in the first place. And since wind was the covered peril, not water intrusion alone, that denial became the linchpin of the entire dispute. It’s like saying, “Yeah, your car’s totaled, but since the tree that fell on it was swaying in the wind, we don’t cover that.” Makes sense if you’re a robot programmed to deny.

Nowowiejski wasn’t having it. He hired his own adjuster—because apparently you now need a forensic insurance accountant just to get your roof fixed—who came back with an estimate of $93,723.38 in covered damages. That’s not chump change. That’s a new car, a down payment on a smaller house, or enough shingles to build a small village. He handed that number to Foremost. And Foremost? They allegedly said, “Nope,” paid out less than $75,000, and left Nowowiejski holding the soggy bag. So he sued. Not for revenge. Not for fame. But because, as the petition puts it, the insurer “breached its contractual obligations” and acted in bad faith—a phrase that sounds like a country song but in insurance law means “you lied, cheated, or just straight-up ghosted your customer when the check was due.”

Now, let’s break this down like we’re explaining it to a jury of our peers (who are all probably Googling “how to sue my insurance company” as we speak). The first legal claim here is breach of contract. Simple idea: you pay premiums, they promise to pay if disaster strikes. Disaster struck. They didn’t pay. That’s breach. End of story. But the second claim? Bad faith. That’s the spicy part. In Oklahoma, insurers don’t just have a contract with you—they have a duty to treat you fairly. They can’t drag their feet, misrepresent policy terms, or send out adjusters who are basically trained to say “no.” And Nowowiejski’s lawyers allege Foremost did all that and more: failed to send unbiased experts, ignored clear damage, and—here’s the kicker—has a profit-sharing program that financially rewards employees for denying or underpaying claims. That’s not just stingy. That’s systemic. That’s “we built a business model on making our customers suffer.” If proven, it’s the kind of revelation that makes you want to cancel every subscription you’ve ever had and move into a cave.

So what does Nowowiejski want? $75,000—at minimum—in actual damages. Plus punitive damages. Plus attorney fees. Plus interest. Plus disgorgement, which is a fancy legal term for “give back the dirty money you made from screwing me.” And yes, he wants a jury trial, because nothing says “I want 12 of my peers to see how ridiculous this is” like demanding a courtroom showdown over a denied roof repair.

Is $75,000 a lot? In the world of insurance claims, it’s not a jackpot. It’s not even close to the $93k+ in damages claimed. But for a homeowner stuck with a half-repaired house and a growing mold problem, it’s the difference between stability and financial freefall. And when you consider that insurance companies like Foremost collect billions in premiums, refusing to pay a claim of this size isn’t about fiscal responsibility—it’s about precedent. It’s about sending a message: We will make it so painful to fight us that most people just won’t bother. And that’s exactly why this case matters.

Our take? Look, we’re not saying every insurance company is evil. But the idea that an insurer might incentivize its employees to deny claims—to literally profit from your loss—is the kind of corporate dystopia we’re supposed to laugh off in movies, not live through in real life. The most absurd part isn’t that the wind damaged the house. It’s that the system designed to protect people from that damage might be designed to fail them. And Nowowiejski? We’re rooting for him. Not because he’s flawless, but because he’s the guy who said, “Wait a minute. You told me I was covered. I paid for that. And now you’re telling me the wind didn’t blow? Really?”

This isn’t just about a roof. It’s about trust. And if we can’t trust our insurance companies after a storm, what can we trust? The barn owl? Please. That bird’s been outsourced.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Patrick C. McGinnis

Chad T. Wilson Law Firm PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Cezary Nowowiejski individual
Rep: Chad T. Wilson Law Firm PLLC

Defendants

Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. d/b/a Foremost Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
2	Bad Faith	Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in bad faith by refusing to pay for certain damages despite knowing the scope of loss.

Petition Text

1,309 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CEZARY NOWOWIEJSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) CASE NO. CJ-2026- d/b/a FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY) Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Cezary Nowowiejski ("Plaintiff"), and for his causes of action against Defendant, Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., d/b/a Foremost Insurance Company ("Foremost"), hereby states as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Plaintiff has an insurable interest in the property located at 3817 South Union Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107. 2. Foremost is an insurance company engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Oklahoma. Foremost may be served with process by serving the Corporation Services Company, 10300 Greenbrier Place, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159. Plaintiff requests service at this time. 3. Plaintiff entered into a contract for insurance with Foremost to provide coverage for its property and contents. Plaintiff's insured property is located at 3817 South Union Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107, Tulsa County, Oklahoma ("Property"). Foremost issued a homeowners policy of insurance to Plaintiff, Policy 381-5012702470-02 ("Policy"). The Policy was in effect from June 29, 2024, to June 29, 2025 ("Policy Period"). 4. The Policy issued to Plaintiff provides coverage for wind damage. 5. Foremost represented to the Plaintiff that it would conduct itself in accordance with Oklahoma law and would fully and faithfully investigate and pay claims. Plaintiff relied on said representations. 6. During the Policy Period, the Property was severely damaged as a direct result of wind damage. 7. Plaintiff timely and properly submitted a claim to Foremost for the property damage incurred. Foremost assigned a date of loss of May 24, 2025. 8. Foremost confirmed that the cause of Plaintiff’s property damage claim was due to water and that the loss was covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy with Foremost and assigned claim number 7009011445-1 to the covered loss. 9. Due to Foremost’s representation that Suit Against Us must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage, Plaintiff timely filed the subject suit in compliance with the Policy. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 10. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 above as if fully pleaded herein, and for further claims against Foremost alleges as follows: 11. Plaintiff entered into a contract for insurance with Foremost to provide coverage for the dwelling, other structures, and personal property. The Policy issued by Foremost to Plaintiff specifically provides coverage for losses caused by wind. 12. At all times material hereto, the Policy of insurance (Policy No. 381-5012702470-02) was in full force and effect. 13. Plaintiff provided timely and proper notice of the claim for property damage resulting from water. 14. Plaintiff has complied with the terms and conditions and all conditions precedent under the Policy of insurance. 15. As to the damage that underlies Plaintiff’s claim, Foremost has not paid full insurance benefits to date for those losses covered by the Policy. Foremost’s denial is derived from its misplaced reliance upon an outcome-oriented investigation and its wrongful determination of the loss being considered an exclusion. 16. Conversely, Plaintiff’s retained adjuster wrote an estimate of covered damages, which totaled $93,723.38. This estimate was provided to Foremost. 17. By failing to timely and properly pay the Plaintiff for losses covered by the Policy, Foremost has breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the Policy with Plaintiff. 18. By failing to fully indemnify Plaintiff for losses covered by the Policy, Foremost has breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the Policy with Plaintiff by failing to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed. 19. Foremost’s conduct is the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. 20. As a result of Foremost’ breach of contract, Plaintiff has sustained financial losses. 21. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3629(B), Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and statutory interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 22. As a result of Foremost’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and all interest allowed by law. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FAITH 23. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if fully pleaded herein, and for further claims against Foremost alleges as follows: 24. Foremost owes a duty to Plaintiff to deal fairly and act in good faith. 25. Foremost failed to retain unbiased and qualified professionals to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s loss. 26. Foremost has implemented business practices, including refusing to pay for certain damages despite knowing the scope of loss requires such repairs, in an effort to maximize its profit and underpay its insureds. 27. Foremost breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith by failing to timely and properly investigate, evaluate, and/or pay the Plaintiff’s claim. 28. Foremost’s obligations to the Plaintiffs arise from both express written terms under the insurance Policy and the Oklahoma Insurance Code, as well as implied obligations under Oklahoma law. 29. Foremost’s conduct is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract entered into with the Plaintiff and constitutes bad faith. 30. Despite Foremost’s adjuster failing to identify damage to the Plaintiff’s dwelling, Foremost failed to pay for the direct physical damage caused by the wind. 31. Foremost owes for all direct physical damages caused by a peril not otherwise limited or excluded by the express terms of the Policy. 32. Foremost ignored direct physical damages covered by the Policy for financial gain. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Foremost’s unfair claims handling conduct, Plaintiff’s claim was unnecessarily delayed, inadequately investigated, and wrongfully underpaid. Said actions resulted in additional profits and a financial premium to Foremost 34. Foremost engages in a profit-sharing program that provides financial incentives to its employees to underpay and/or deny its insureds’ claims. 35. As a result of Foremost’s conduct, the Plaintiffs have sustained financial losses and have been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and all interest allowed by law. 36. The conduct of Foremost was intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and said conduct is sufficiently egregious in nature to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 37. The amount of punitive damages sought to be recovered is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 38. Plaintiff further alleges Foremost profited from increased financial benefits and ill-gotten gains as a direct result of the intentional and wrongful conduct described above, which resulted in further damage to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Foremost insureds in the State of Oklahoma. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, Foremost Insurance Company, as follows: a. Payment of all contractual benefits for all coverages afforded to Plaintiff under the subject Policy of insurance for damage to the dwelling, other structures, and/or personal property caused by the wind damage on or about May 24, 2025, together with interest on all amounts due; b. Actual and punitive damages each in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00); c. Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by Foremost as a direct result of Foremost’s wrongful or intentional, willful, malicious, and/or reckless conduct; d. The amount of punitive damages sought to be recovered for Plaintiff’s Bad Faith/Breach of the Common Law Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing action is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code; and e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, statutory attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, CHAD T. WILSON LAW FIRM, PLLC By: /s/ Patrick C. McGinnis Patrick C. McGinnis, OBA # 32561 455 E Medical Center Blvd, Suite 555 Webster, Texas 77598 Tel: (713) 222-6000 Fax: (281) 940-2137 [email protected] [email protected] and Jacquelyn L. Dill, OBA #19955 Dill Law Firm, P.C. 4801 Gaillardia Parkway, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142 Tel: (405) 253-6444 Fax: (405) 253-6445 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED