Michael Bowers v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL BOWERS, Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. PETITION Plaintiff Michael Bowers (hereafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), for his causes of action against Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (hereafter referred to as "Defendant" or "Allstate"), hereby alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff purchased an Allstate homeowners' replacement cost insurance policy, Policy No. 000810603521 (the "Policy"), through the offices of an Allstate Agent (hereafter referred to as "Agent"). At the time Plaintiff purchased the Policy from Defendants, Agent was a captive agent and/or implied or apparent agent of Allstate. 3. Allstate is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in Oklahoma. Allstate may be served via the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner, Glen Mulready, 400 N.E. 50th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105. Upon information and belief, Allstate has its corporate headquarters located at 2775 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. 4. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Plaintiff owns his dwelling, other structures, and personal property located at 12404 Kingsridge Ter., Oklahoma City, OK 73170 (the “Insured Property”). 6. This Petition alleges a systematic and pervasive Scheme on the part of (a) Defendant Allstate and (b) the Agent. Allstate, and Agent perpetuated the Scheme through the use of its adjuster(s) dispatched to inspect the Insured Property. By and through their Scheme, Defendant has caused substantial harm to Plaintiff. 7. Allstate is a household name—it holds itself out as a premier provider of insurance products under the slogan “Allstate – You’re in good hands.” Allstate’s marketing lures insureds with customer-focused messaging designed to build trust among a diverse target audience. Allstate’s website boasts about “peace of mind” and “protection at home, work and play.” 8. Despite its hollow “good hands” promises, Defendant employs a systematic and pervasive Scheme throughout Oklahoma, whereby Allstate wrongfully denies its insureds’ claims for damage to their covered property caused by wind and/or hail. Allstate’s claim denials on wind and hailstorm claims are unreasonable, lack true justification, and are pre-determined. Allstate intentionally and knowingly employs this scheme for profit and in bad faith. 9. Allstate’s wind and hailstorm scheme (the “Scheme”) operates as follows: a. Allstate’s captive agents (including Plaintiff’s Agent) sell a form insurance policy to the insured at the insured’s behest to cover the insured’s home. In doing so, Allstate’s agent expressly and/or impliedly represents (i) the property to be insured meets Allstate’s underwriting requirements for the coverage bound, and (ii) the replacement cost value (and resultant coverage limit) Allstate’s agent calculated for the insured is accurate. b. Allstate’s agent wholly fails to disclose the Scheme to the insured or advise the insured of any of the Scheme’s realities, all of which operate to negate the coverage the policy purports to afford the insured. Allstate’s agent fails to disclose material information about Allstate’s scheme in violation of duties owed to the insured. Allstate agents also fail to disclose certain bad faith claims handling tactics that would be material information to an insured when purchasing an insurance policy. c. Allstate agents fail to make these disclosures to the insured despite having knowledge of Allstate’s Scheme targeted at roof claims and being keenly aware of Allstate’s bad faith claims handling tactics utilized to systematically underpay and/or deny said roof claims. d. Allstate issues a policy purporting to convey coverage for the insured’s home. Allstate captive agents expressly and/or impliedly represent this coverage includes coverage for loss arising from a wind or hailstorm. e. The insured incurs a covered loss to the insured property arising from a wind or hailstorm and timely files a claim. f. Allstate denies the claim as part of its Scheme. It does so using an array of (i) undisclosed definitions and coverage limitations that are entirely absent from the four corners of the policy, and (ii) bad faith claims handling tactics that are rigged against the insured. g. When subjected to the Scheme, an insured has no choice but to file suit to recover benefits Allstate owes under the policy. Allstate’s treatment of Plaintiff (including bad faith claims handling tactics and material misrepresentations and/or omissions by Allstate and Allstate agents) exemplifies this Scheme in action. 10. All captive Allstate agents have certain underwriting duties. The United States Supreme Court acknowledges that “one ‘indispensable characteristic of insurance’ is the ‘spreading and underwriting of a policyholder’s risk[.]’” See Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 102 S.Ct. 3002, 3008, 73 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982) (internal citation omitted). Oklahoma law has acknowledged that the pre-bind inspection is for the protection of the insurer, so that it may properly evaluate the risk. See Aduddell Lincoln Plaza Hotel v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 2015 OK CIV APP 34, ¶ 11, 348 P.3d 216 (“When a person applies for insurance, the potential insurer may ask to inspect the property as part of its process of evaluating the risk. Accepting the risk proposed in [the insured’s] application meant [the insurer] agreed to write the policy.”) (emphasis added). Oklahoma law has long recognized that insurance companies use their agents to properly underwrite the risk: The other principal theory of the formation of the insurance contract is based upon facts. Everybody knows what the facts are. The insurance company sends out its agents for the purpose of procuring insurance. They are usually experts in the business, and are frequently paid large bonuses for securing extra large volumes of insurance. Few persons solicited to take policies understand the subject of insurance or the rules of law governing the negotiations, and they have no voice in dictating the terms of what is called the contract. They are clear upon two or three points which the agent promises to protect, and for everything else they must sign ready–made applications and accept ready–made policies carefully concocted to conserve the interests of the company. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. Cameron, 1922 OK 80, 205 P. 151, 155 (emphasis added). Oklahoma law acknowledges that the agent solicits the underwriting information for the insureds benefit to properly underwrite the risk and this knowledge is imputed to the insurer. See Motors Ins. Corp. v. Freeman, 1956 OK 247, ¶¶ 12-13, 304 P. 2d 328. 11. Agent was negligent in the procurement of the Policy for Plaintiff. Agent never inspected the Insured Property at procurement or at any subsequent renewal to ensure Plaintiff’s Insured Property met the requirements Allstate has for 100% replacement cost coverage. 12. In seeking out insurance, Plaintiff requested from Agent 100% replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property in the event of a loss.1 Agent thereby represented to Plaintiff that the property met Allstate’s underwriting guidelines and qualified for the full replacement cost coverage Plaintiff specifically requested. 13. Allstate’s conduct, including the manner in which Allstate and its adjuster(s) handled the Claim, illustrate Scheme in action and Allstate’s resultant bad faith: a. On or about April 19, 2023, the Insured Property sustained extensive wind and hail damage from a notorious and powerful storm. As a result of the severe wind and hail damage sustained to the Insured Property, Plaintiff timely and properly submitted a claim to Allstate, claim no. 0723131082 (the “Claim”). b. On July 8, 2024, Allstate deployed an adjuster to inspect the damage to the Insured Property. The adjuster’s inspection was woefully inadequate and failed to account for the full extent of damage sustained from the wind- and hailstorm. For example, by way of Allstate’s Scheme, the adjuster purposefully limited the estimate for roof damage to just $2323.99—a far cry from the true amount of damage (and full replacement cost required to address such damage) caused by the storm, as Plaintiff would later discover. Allstate’s 1 See Rains v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6729085, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 16, 2020) ("Unlike requests for 'full' or 'adequate' coverage, a specific request for 'replacement' coverage could qualify as a 'need[ ] ... disclosed by the insureds' that would trigger an agent's duty to provide such coverage if promised. Rotan, 83 P.3d at 895. The term 'replacement coverage' is a term that connotes a specific type of coverage.") Scheme dictated that its adjuster manipulate the estimate to ensure the damage did not exceed the Policy deductible. c. Because Allstate’s Scheme mandated the adjuster’s low-ball findings, Allstate denied the Claim and the clear covered damage because the damage was attributable to pre-existing wear and tear—not hail damage. d. By ignoring blatant and severe hail damage, Allstate and its adjuster(s) were able to avoid paying Plaintiff the full replacement cost benefits rightfully owed under the Policy. e. Plaintiff subsequently hired a roofing expert, OKC Roofers, who determined Plaintiff required a total roof replacement. f. The blaming of blatant hail damage on the age of the roof is a common Scheme tactic by Allstate that Agent plays a significant role in advancing. An inspection by Agent at Policy inception and upon each annual renewal of coverage would have revealed any issues with the condition of the Insured Property (i.e., “age”) or any other defects that would preclude Plaintiff from replacement cost coverage. Agent is required to disclose these coverage-negating issues, such as age of the roof, to both Plaintiff and Allstate because any defects with the condition or otherwise would affect Plaintiff’s eligibility for replacement cost coverage. Both Allstate and Agent either knew about or could have discovered the age of the roof throughout the life of the Policy; never disclosed any issues with the age of the roof; and procured, bound, and renewed the replacement cost policy with this knowledge. g. Agent could have discovered and reported the purported age of the roof to Plaintiff at any time prior to the Claim. h. Instead, on information and belief, Agent failed to conduct an inspection at any procurement or renewal and failed to disclose any issues with the condition of the roof or other defects that would preclude coverage. Thus, Agent failed to verify whether or not Plaintiff truly qualified for replacement cost coverage and satisfied all of Allstate’s underwriting guidelines. i. Agent inherently represented and/or omitted material information regarding that the Insured Property’s roof was in good condition, that all of Allstate’s underwriting guidelines had been satisfied, and the Insured Property was eligible for replacement cost coverage. j. Plaintiff hired a roofing contractor to assess the damage to the Insured Property. Plaintiff’s roofing contractor contradicted Allstate’s denial based on falsified damage findings, and he took pictures of the extensive damage and advised Plaintiff that the amount and severity of hail damage from the hailstorm required full replacement of the roof. k. Plaintiff had no means to discover that he would not be paid his replacement cost benefits rightfully owed under the Policy until after the ensuing Claim. As a result, Allstate has refused to pay all monies due and payable under the terms of the subject Policy. l. Allstate and its adjuster(s) conducted a sham and pre-textual investigation of the Claim as mandated by the Scheme and refused to acknowledge blatant hail damage to the roof. Agent helped Allstate advance the Scheme so that Allstate could ambush Plaintiff with a denial based on the alleged age of the roof. See supra ¶¶ 10, 11(e)-(h). FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 14. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 15. At all relevant times, Allstate concealed material facts about Allstate's Scheme from Plaintiff. This concealment protected and perpetuated the Scheme, such that Plaintiff had no way of ascertaining the Scheme or the accrual of any cause of action against Defendant. 16. The Scheme is an artifice, which Allstate designed to be hidden from its insureds' discovery. To wit, the inherent nature of Allstate's "good hands" promises—the duty of good faith and fair dealing Allstate 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. 17. Allstate's fraudulent concealment tolls the running of any applicable statute of limitations. COUNTS COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant Allstate 18. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 19. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance (the "Policy") with Allstate to provide homeowner's insurance for the Insured Property. The Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 20. Allstate uses a form replacement cost policy to issue homeowners’ insurance coverage in Oklahoma. This form policy is integral to the Scheme: the scope of coverage for each insured Allstate subjects to its Scheme is effectively and materially the same, notwithstanding differences in coverage amounts, premiums paid, or endorsements added to bolster or strip away coverage. 21. Allstate and its agents (like Plaintiff’s Agent) represent the form policy to be a replacement cost policy. Just as with any subject property insured under a form policy, the coverage limit for the Insured Property is keyed to its replacement cost value, such that the Policy should afford an amount of coverage that represents the full amount needed to replace the Insured Property in the event of a loss. Allstate, through its agents, voluntarily assumes the responsibility of calculating both the replacement cost value and the resultant coverage limit for the insured. 22. After Allstate’s agent binds the policy without inspection, Allstate’s Scheme turns on a series of bad faith claims handling tactics, which help Allstate justify denials of valid claims. These practices include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Allstate employs a narrow and limited definition (as well as restrictive claims-handling protocols) for hail damage. This allows Allstate adjusters to deny claims even when their loss inspection clearly shows hail damage to the insured roof. Allstate’s narrow and limited definition and other coverage limitations absent from the four corners of the policy are hidden from the insured until Allstate uses them to deny a valid claim. Allstate’s captive agents (including Agent here) are fully aware of the narrow and limited definition and other coverage limitations; this critical disclosure is concealed and Allstate’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 Allstate’s Scheme that the insured learns of Allstate’s internal limitations to its coverage regarding hail damage. This is precisely what happened to Plaintiff. b. Allstate’s adjusters misattribute damage to non-covered causes of loss. Allstate’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.” With regard to roof shingles, Allstate often misclassifies shingle damage as “granular loss.” This finding flies in the face of Defendant’s representations and/or material omissions, which are inherent to the act of procuring, binding, and renewing coverage. Critically, Defendant expressly and/or impliedly represent that the Insured Property qualifies for the coverage bound by virtue of the act of binding the coverage. Thus, if the roof suffered from a manufacturer defect, pre-existing damage (i.e., age of the roof), or substantial wear and tear, the roof may not qualify for coverage (whether at inception or annual renewal). 23. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Allstate of the Claim for damage arising from wind and/or hail, which caused significant damage to the Insured Property. 24. The Policy coverage includes all fortuitous losses—which necessarily includes damage sustained by wind and/or hail. The Policy language does not define, distinguish, or limit wind and/or hail damage in any fashion. 25. Plaintiff complied in all material ways with the terms and conditions of the Policy. 26. Allstate breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the Policy by failing to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy and for wrongfully underpaying and denying portions of the Claim. 27. Consistent with Allstate’s pervasive, state-wide fraudulent Scheme described in detail throughout this Petition, Allstate actively, intentionally, and fraudulently concealed its Scheme to deny and/or underpay valid hail damage claims from Plaintiff. This concealment is an inherent and important aspect of Allstate’s Scheme. 28. As a result of Allstate’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiff incurred damages. COUNT II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ("Bad Faith") Against Defendant Allstate 29. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 30. At all relevant times hereto, Allstate owed Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing. 31. Allstate 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 Plaintiff; iv. withholding pertinent benefits, coverages, and other provisions due to Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff; vi. recklessly disregarding said rights; vii. forcing Plaintiff 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 (i.e., roof age) and faulty installation without a pre-inception property inspection and/or without reasonably updated knowledge of the pre-loss condition of the subject property; and xi. 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. inspect the Insured Property prior to inception of the coverage and/or maintain current information as to the condition of the Insured Property prior to the loss; ii. notify Plaintiff, both prior to and at the inception and renewal of the Policy, of any pre-existing damage (such as age of the roof) 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 Plaintiff; and viii. disclose Allstate’s lack of compliance with its own underwriting guidelines, policies, and procedures in denying coverage to Plaintiff. 32. Allstate’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. Allstate has no reasonable basis in its refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiff the agreed replacement cost as per the Policy for damages caused by the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. 33. Allstate’s Scheme demonstrates a “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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s contract claim and the claim of bad faith in that they may show a pattern and practice). 34. As a consequence of Allstate’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, and physical and emotional suffering that naturally results from an insurance failure. 35. Allstate’s conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of others. Allstate’s actions during the handling of the Claim demonstrate it acted intentionally, with malice, and breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith. Allstate’s actions were consistent with an overall collective corporate goal of increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and denial of claims and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 36. Allstate 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 Plaintiff. COUNT IV: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION Against Defendant Allstate 37. All allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 38. Defendant owed Plaintiff a legal and/or equitable duty to disclose all material facts that may arise out of their relationship as insurer and insured. Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc., 2013 OK 34, ¶ 17, 308 P.3d 1041. 39. The concealment of a material fact which substantially affects another person constitutes fraud. Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 1999 OK 33, ¶ 34; Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, 2020 OK 87, 475 P.3d 847. 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. Sutton, 475 P.3d at 15. 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. Id. (citing Croslin, ¶ 17) (emphasis added). 40. "[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. 41. 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. See Lopez v. Rollins, 2013 OK CIV APP 43, 303 P.3d 911; Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, 2020 OK 87; Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 2001 OK 76, 37 P.3d 783; Ragland v. Shattuck Nat'l Bank, 36 F.3d 983, 992 (10th Cir. 1994) (applying Oklahoma law). 42. Defendant owed specific duties to Plaintiff. These duties are encompassed in Allstate's duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to its insureds, as well as specific duties Agent owed Plaintiff—a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and skill in obtaining and accurately notifying of the nature and character of the insurance procured; the duty in undertaking the calculation of replacement cost for the insured to use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to do so; the duty to speak accurately and truthfully; and the duty to disclose all material facts relating to the Scheme as outlined within this Petition. 43. Defendant breached this duty by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) the following: a. Defendant misrepresented the Insured Property met all underwriting requirements, that all property inspections had occurred, and that the replacement cost values it 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. Defendant misrepresented that the Insured Property (and, specifically, its roof) was eligible for the comprehensive full replacement coverage (rather than ACV). c. Defendant failed to disclose that pre-existing issues (here, age of the roof) with the Insured Property would either prevent issuance of the replacement cost coverage or limit coverage for any damage during the Policy period. d. Defendant misrepresented that the Policy covered all fortuitous losses and that weather-related damage (even cosmetic)—big or small—was fully covered under the Policy. e. Defendant failed to disclose all material information to an insured about Allstate’s bad faith claims handling tactics, its reliance on undisclosed definitions and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about Allstate’s handling of wind and hailstorm claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision. 44. Defendant failed to disclose to Plaintiff any of the above misrepresentations and/or omissions, any facts underlying these misrepresentations, or any material facts regarding the Scheme; 45. Nevertheless, Defendant sold and renewed illusory replacement cost insurance coverage to Plaintiff, knowing such statements were untrue. 46. As a result of both Allstate and Agent’s breach of duty, each gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiff to substantial detriment and prejudice. These breaches of duty induced Plaintiff to accept, purchase, and renew the Allstate replacement cost policy. 47. Allstate and Agent’s conduct constitutes constructive fraud. 48. At all relevant times, Agent was Allstate’s employee and/or agent. 49. As a result of the Defendant’s constructive fraud, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, and physical and emotional suffering. 50. Defendant’s 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. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, this Court should enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff against all Defendant for: (a) Actual damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00; (b) Punitive damages under Oklahoma law; (c) Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by any and/or all of the Defendant as a direct result of the Defendant’s wrongful conduct; and (d) Prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] 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 Plaintiff ATTORNEYS' LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED