CJ-2026-644 - Linda Strummer v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: a 76-year-old widow, reeling from the sudden loss of her husband, then watched her home flood from a burst pipe—only for Allstate to say, “Nah, that’s just seepage,” without ever sending someone to look at the house. Not once. No inspection. No explanation. Just a flat denial and a $5,000 “take it or leave it” offer tossed her way six months later, like she was haggling at a flea market, not trying to repair her life. And now? She’s suing the insurance giant for $34,000—plus punitive damages—because apparently, in 2025, you can’t trust your insurer to do the bare minimum: show up.

Linda Strummer isn’t some mystery plaintiff pulled from thin air. She’s a real person, a Tulsa homeowner, a long-time Allstate customer who paid her premiums like clockwork, expecting that when disaster struck, the company would be there. And disaster did strike—on April 18, 2025, just four days after she buried her husband. In the quiet, grief-soaked early morning, a pipe in her home at 8953 South Darlington Avenue burst, sending water gushing through the master bedroom, master bath, and hallway. Inches deep. Soaking everything. The kind of damage that doesn’t just ruin drywall—it ruins peace of mind. And yet, in her moment of need, the company she trusted didn’t send a plumber, didn’t send an inspector, didn’t even send a condolence card. They sent a denial letter. Based on photos.

Allstate assigned a claims adjuster named Unique Gavin (yes, that’s really their name, and no, we’re not making that up), who allegedly reviewed photos taken by Burggraf Services, Inc.—the restoration company Linda hired to clean up the mess and estimate repairs. By May 5, 2025, Burggraf had sent Allstate photos, documentation, the whole package. Two days later, Allstate dropped the hammer: claim denied. Why? Because the damage was due to “long-term seepage,” not a sudden pipe burst. Never mind that the pipe was still there, available for inspection. Never mind that the damage spanned multiple rooms. Never mind that Linda had no history of water issues. Allstate didn’t care. They didn’t visit. They didn’t ask questions. They didn’t even try to explain how “seepage” magically flooded three rooms at once. They just said no.

Linda, being a reasonable human, escalated. She filed a formal complaint with the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner. And in their response—on June 10, 2025—Allstate doubled down. They claimed the photos showed “long-term damage in the bathroom.” But guess what? They didn’t mention the bedroom. Or the hallway. Or the fact that their entire argument rested on a theory they never bothered to investigate. It was like a detective solving a murder by only looking at the kitchen and then saying, “Clearly, the victim died of old age.”

By September, Linda’s patience was gone. Her lawyer, R. Scott Savage of Moyers Martin, LLP, sent a demand letter: reimburse her $4,810.34 for the restoration company’s work, and we’ll talk about repairs. Allstate? Radio silence. No response. Nothing. So on October 17, another letter—this one sharper. It laid out the facts: the $28,861.10 repair estimate, the six months Linda had spent living in a damaged home, the unexamined pipe, the complete lack of investigation. It was a gut punch of a letter, the kind that says, “You know this is wrong.”

Finally, on October 22, Allstate responded. But not with an apology. Not with an inspector. Not even with a real offer. Instead, a new adjuster—Michael Sampayo—rolled in and said, “Here’s $5,000. Take it or sue us.” Oh, and by the way, he claimed Allstate had “thoroughly investigated the loss.” Which would be impressive… if they’d actually been to the house. They hadn’t. Not once. Not ever.

So now, Linda’s in court. And she’s not just mad—she’s done. Her lawsuit accuses Allstate of two big things: breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Let’s translate that from Legalese to Human. First, breach of contract: you had a deal. She paid for insurance. They promised to cover sudden water damage. A pipe burst. That’s sudden. They didn’t pay. That’s a broken promise. Simple. Second, the duty of good faith: insurance companies can’t just say “no” for no reason. They have to investigate fairly. They have to act like decent human beings, not profit-obsessed robots. Allstate didn’t do any of that. They denied the claim based on a theory, ignored evidence, refused to inspect, lied about investigating, and lowballed a grieving widow. That’s not just bad business—that’s bad karma.

And what does Linda want? $34,000. Is that a lot? For Allstate—a company that made $11 billion in profit in 2024? It’s pocket change. But for a 76-year-old woman living in a water-damaged home, unable to afford repairs, emotionally battered by loss and corporate indifference? It’s dignity. It’s safety. It’s the ability to sleep without worrying about mold, or floors collapsing, or whether the company that profited from her premiums will ever honor their end of the deal. She also wants punitive damages—meaning, “Hey, punish them so they don’t do this to anyone else.” And honestly? Same.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t just that Allstate denied the claim. It’s that they did it without ever seeing the house. Imagine if your mechanic refused to look under the hood, glanced at a blurry photo of your engine, and said, “Yeah, this damage is from neglect. You’re on your own.” You’d laugh. You’d sue. And yet, that’s exactly what insurers get away with every day. They hide behind “expert opinions” made by people who’ve never touched the property, deny claims on technicalities, and bank on the fact that most people—especially elderly, grieving people—won’t have the energy or resources to fight back.

Linda Strummer did. And we’re rooting for her. Not because she wants $34,000. But because she’s demanding something bigger: accountability. Respect. A basic level of decency from a company that built its brand on the slogan “You’re in good hands.” Turns out, when you’re a widow with a flooded home, those hands might be tied behind their back—refusing to help. This case isn’t just about water damage. It’s about who we trust when everything falls apart. And if Allstate thinks they can ghost a customer, lie about investigating, and toss her a five-grand consolation prize? Well, welcome to court, baby. The jury’s waiting. And this time, they’re definitely going to inspect the evidence.

Case Overview

$34,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

R. Scott Savage

Moyers Martin, LLP

Relief Sought

$34,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Linda Strummer individual
Rep: R. Scott Savage, OBA No. 7926

Defendants

Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Allstate failed to pay insurance benefits for damage to plaintiff's home
2	Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Allstate engaged in unfair claims settlement practices

Petition Text

1,660 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA LINDA STRUMMER, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CJ-2026-00644 Case No. ______________________ TRACY L. PRIDDY ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Linda Strummer, and for her cause of action against Defendant, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company ("Allstate"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Allstate, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and is an insurance company registered and engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Oklahoma. 3. The subject of Plaintiff's claim against Allstate arise out of a policy of insurance sold to Plaintiff by Allstate, which provides for coverage of losses sustained by Plaintiff to property she owns in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in Tulsa County and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, and venue is proper in this Court. GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS 5. Allstate issued a Homeowners Policy, Policy No. 000885104567 ("the Policy"), to Plaintiff covering her home at 8953 South Darlington Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74134 (the "Insured Property"), with a policy period providing coverage for the period during which all events described herein occurred. 6. Allstate represented to 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. 7. In the early morning hours on April 18, 2025, Plaintiff's home sustained significant damage as a result of a broken water pipe. The result of the water leak was inches deep water throughout Plaintiff's home, including the master bedroom, master bath and hallway. 8. On that same date of April 18, 2025, Plaintiff gave notice to Allstate of her claim. 9. Allstate assigned Unique Gavin as the adjuster in charge of Plaintiff's claim. 10. On or about April 18, 2025, Plaintiff retained the services of Burggraf Services, Inc. ("Burggraf"), for purposes of cleaning up the damage and providing an estimate of the needed repairs. 11. On May 5, 2025, Burggraf sent Allstate various documentation, including pictures its employees had taken. 12. On May 6, 2025, Allstate claims to have reviewed the photos, and on May 7, 2025, sent a letter advising Plaintiff that the damage was the result of long-term "seepage" and denied the claim. 13. Allstate never inspected the home; never advised Plaintiff of where it determined the source of the seepage occurred; never considered if the leak on April 18, 2025, caused any damage separate and apart from its conclusion of seepage; and never advised Plaintiff how the seepage caused damage in three separate rooms and the hallway. 14. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner, and on June 10, 2025, Allstate responded by letter to the Insurance Commissioner claiming that the photos it reviewed indicated long-term damage in the bathroom. Allstate made no mention nor attempted to explain the cause of the damage to Plaintiff’s bedrooms and hallway. 15. On September 30, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff sent Allstate a letter demanding that it reimburse Plaintiff for what she had paid Burggraf Services in the amount of $4,810.34. Plaintiff’s counsel further informed Allstate that, upon reimbursement, a proposal for the restoration of the damage to the home would be provided. 16. Allstate ignored and did not respond to the September 30th correspondence. 17. On October 17, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff sent Allstate a second letter and pointed out the following: a. Allstate had still not reimbursed Plaintiff for the amount she had paid Burggraf Services; b. The cost to repair the damage, per the documents provided with the letter, was estimated to be $28,861.10; c. Plaintiff was unable to afford to repair the damage and, as a consequence, had lived in her damaged home for six months; d. Allstate had never investigated Plaintiff’s damage; and e. The water line which broke and caused the damage was still available for inspection. 18. Allstate finally responded on October 22, 2025, through a second adjuster, Michael Sampayo, and made a take it or leave it offer of $5,000.00. Mr. Sampayo, apparently not aware of the fact that Allstate had never been to Plaintiff’s home much less investigated the loss, made the false statement that Allstate had “thoroughly investigated the loss.” 19. Allstate’s offer was grossly inadequate to cover the loss, and Plaintiff remains living in a damaged home. 20. Plaintiff is 76 years old and became a widow just four days before her home was damaged. 21. Allstate has failed and continues to refuse to pay all monies due and payable under the terms of the Policy. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT 22. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if fully plead herein. 23. Plaintiff entered into a contract for insurance with Allstate to provide coverage for the Insured Property. 24. At all times material hereto, the Policy was in full force and effect. 25. Plaintiff has complied with all terms and conditions of the Policy, as well as all conditions precedent under the Policy. 26. Allstate failed to conduct an investigation to determine the cause of the damage, and consequently, its offer of $5,000.00 to cover the loss is grossly inadequate. 27. Allstate violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Claims Practices Act. 28. Allstate has refused to pay the full value of insurance benefits for all losses covered by the Policy. 29. By failing to fully indemnify Plaintiff for losses covered by the Policy, Allstate has breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the Policy with Plaintiff and have failed to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed. 30. Allstate’s conduct is the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. 31. As a result of Allstate’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has sustained financial losses. 32. Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629(B), Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and statutory interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 33. As a result of Allstate’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount of at least $34,000.00. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 34. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 33 above as if fully plead herein. 35. Allstate owed a duty to Plaintiff to deal fairly and act in good faith. 36. Allstate failed to properly and thoroughly inspect and investigate Plaintiff’s claim. 37. Allstate made knowingly false and improper statements and claims handling decisions to the detriment of Plaintiff. 38. Allstate failed to retain qualified professionals to properly inspect and estimate Plaintiff’s loss and ignored the findings of the third party that Plaintiff had to hire to assist in remediating and estimating the damage. 39. In an effort to maximize profit and underpay its policyholders, Allstate has implemented business practices, including refusing to pay for certain damages despite knowing the scope of loss requires such repairs or replacements. 40. Allstate breached the duty to deal fairly and act in good faith by engaging in the following acts and omissions: a. Failing to fully, adequately and properly investigate Plaintiff's claim; b. Failing to evaluate and/or pay the full and fair amount for the property damage sustained by Plaintiff from the water leak, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy; c. Refusing to restore Plaintiff's Insured Property to its pre-loss condition; d. Purposefully, wrongfully and repeatedly withholding benefits and coverages due to the Plaintiff under the Policy; e. Forcing Plaintiff to retain counsel to recover all insurance benefits to which Plaintiff is entitled under the Policy; f. Failing to perform a fair and objective investigation of Plaintiff's damages designed to deny and/or wrongfully reduce the amount paid to Plaintiff; and g. Knowingly and intentionally failing to engage in proper claim handling practices and/or best practices. 41. Allstate’s obligations to Plaintiff arise from both express written terms under the Policy, as well as implied obligations under Oklahoma law. 42. Allstate’s conduct is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract entered into with Plaintiff and constitutes bad faith. 43. Allstate owes for all direct physical loss or damage caused by the water leak otherwise limited or excluded by the express terms of the Policy. 44. Allstate ignored direct physical loss or damage covered by the Policy for financial gain. 45. As a direct and proximate result of Allstate’s bad faith conduct, Plaintiff’s claim was unnecessarily delayed and inadequately investigated. Said actions resulted in additional profits and a financial windfall to Allstate at the detriment of Plaintiff. 46. As a result of Allstate’s conduct, Plaintiff has sustained financial losses, sustained emotional distress and has damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. 47. The conduct of Allstate was intentional, willful, malicious and/or in reckless disregard to the rights of Plaintiff, and said conduct is sufficiently egregious in nature to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Allstate as follows: a. Payment of all contractual benefits for all coverages afforded to Plaintiff under the Policy for damage to the Insured Property caused by the water leak together with interest on all amounts due; b. Payment of damages for the emotional distress sustained by Plaintiff, a 76-year-old widow, for having to live in a damaged home which she cannot afford to repair; c Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by Allstate as a direct result of Allstate’s wrongful or intentional, willful, malicious and/or reckless conduct; d. Entry of an award for Allstate’s failure to act in good faith and with fair dealing; e. Entry of a punitive damages award; and f. Statutory attorneys' fees, costs and interest, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and for such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, [Signature] R. Scott Savage, OBA No. 7926 James H. Ferris, OBA No. 2883 Rodger V. Curlik, OBA No. 31828 MOYERS MARTIN, LLP 401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1100 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4028 Telephone: (918) 582-5281 Facsimile: (918) 585-8318 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff