CJ-2026-00026 - Tyler Almand v. The Hartford Insurance Group

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: insurance companies are supposed to help you when disaster strikes. But what happens when the very company you paid good money to protect your livelihood decides to pull a fast one and says, “Nope, you’re on your own”? That’s exactly what Tyler Almand says happened when The Hartford Insurance Group allegedly issued him a policy for a livestock trailer he didn’t even own—then refused to pay a dime when his actual trailer was in a wreck. Oh, and get this: the policy did have an endorsement that should’ve covered the replacement trailer… but The Hartford didn’t bother mentioning it. Not once. They just said “denied,” hung up, and went back to sipping their overpriced lattes in Connecticut.

Tyler Almand isn’t some corporate guy in a suit. He’s a rancher from Vinita, Oklahoma—Craig County, to be exact—running a small operation under the name Double T Ranch. He hauls livestock, which means his truck and trailer aren’t just tools of the trade; they’re his paycheck on wheels. When you’re moving cattle across state lines, one accident can wipe out profits for months. So yeah, insurance isn’t optional—it’s survival. In October 2023, Tyler reached out to Steve McConnell, an agent with Overman Insurance Agency (which is part of the larger USI Insurance Services), because he needed livestock transit coverage. Nothing fancy, nothing obscure—just basic protection so if (God forbid) something went sideways on the road, he wouldn’t be personally on the hook for dead or injured animals. McConnell, along with his colleagues at Overman, Risk Placement Services, and ultimately The Hartford, got to work. They came back with a policy: $150,000 in coverage per vehicle, $1,000 per animal. Sounds solid, right? Except—plot twist—they insured a 2003 Merritt trailer. Tyler didn’t own a 2003 Merritt trailer. He owned a 1994 Wilson. And then, in November 2024, he upgraded to a shiny new 2021 Barrett trailer—same size, same purpose, same job. He tried to call his insurance people to update the policy. Crickets. Radio silence. No answer. No voicemail. Nothing.

Then, on December 16, 2024—less than a month after getting the new trailer—Tyler was in a car wreck while hauling cattle. Some of the animals were injured. Some didn’t make it. The kind of day that makes ranchers lose sleep and swear off the road forever. He did what any responsible policyholder would do: he called The Hartford and filed a claim. The next day, he got a call back from an adjuster. The conversation was short. The denial was immediate. No investigation. No questions about why the trailer wasn’t listed. No mention of the fact that insurance policies often include replacement vehicle coverage—you know, in case you upgrade your equipment? The Hartford’s own policy had an endorsement that should’ve automatically extended coverage to Tyler’s new Barrett trailer. But instead of applying it, they acted like it didn’t exist. They sent a denial letter the same day—the same day—as the phone call, which means nobody at The Hartford even opened a file, let alone reviewed the policy details. It was a drive-by denial. Cold. Fast. Final.

So now Tyler’s stuck. He’s out money. He’s got dead livestock. He’s got a wrecked trailer. And the company that was supposed to have his back? They’re hiding behind a paperwork error—one they made. That’s when the lawsuit hits. Tyler, represented by the Barron Law Firm (who clearly enjoy taking on Goliath-sized insurance giants), files in Craig County District Court, demanding over $75,000 in actual damages and, yes, punitive damages too—because this isn’t just about a missed payment. It’s about a pattern. A habit. The kind of behavior that says, “We’re big, you’re small, and we’ll deny your claim fast enough that you’ll just give up.” The legal claims are threefold: first, breach of contract—The Hartford took Tyler’s money, promised coverage, and then didn’t pay up. Second, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing—basically, the idea that insurers can’t screw over their customers just to save a buck. And third, negligence—against McConnell and the insurance agencies for insuring the wrong trailer in the first place. Let that sink in: they didn’t just mess up the paperwork; they issued a policy for a vehicle that didn’t exist in Tyler’s world. It’s like buying homeowner’s insurance for a house in Miami when you live in Tulsa.

Now, $75,000 might sound like a lot to some folks—especially in rural Oklahoma—but for a rancher who’s just lost a trailer, a load of cattle, and months of income? It’s not outrageous. And Tyler isn’t asking for a mansion or a yacht. He’s asking to be made whole. To get what he paid for. The punitive damages? That’s the spicy part. That’s not about compensation. That’s about punishment. It’s the legal equivalent of saying, “You didn’t just make a mistake—you acted like a jerk on purpose, and we need to make sure you don’t do it again.” And honestly, that’s what makes this case so deliciously petty-civil-court-worthy. It’s David vs. Goliath, but David drives a pickup and Goliath wears a suit and outsources its customer service to a call center in another time zone.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t even the wrong trailer. It’s the speed of the denial. The Hartford didn’t just deny the claim—they denied it before doing any homework. No review of the endorsement. No call to the agent. No “Hey, maybe this guy replaced his trailer and the policy covers that?” Nope. Just boom—denied. And let’s not forget: Tyler tried to update his policy. He tried to do the right thing. But the agency ghosted him. So whose fault is it really? The little guy who trusted the system? Or the billion-dollar insurance machine that treats claims like spam emails? We’re rooting for Tyler. We’re rooting for the rancher who showed up, paid his premiums, and expected basic decency in return. And if The Hartford wants to keep playing games with real people’s livelihoods, maybe it’s time they learned what “good faith” actually means—preferably in a courtroom, with a jury watching.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Bradford D. Barron

THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Tyler Almand individual
Rep: Bradford D. Barron, OBA No. 17571; Samuel B. Barron, OBA No. 36395

Defendants

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant The Hartford Insurance Group breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay Plaintiff the benefits owed under the terms of the insurance policy.
2	Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant The Hartford Insurance Group breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in various acts and omissions, including failing to perform a proper investigation, refusing to pay the full and fair amount of damages, and violating the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.
3	Negligence	Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Risk Placement Services, Inc.; Overman Insurance Agency, LLC; USI Insurance Services, LLC; and Steve McConnell were negligent in failing to procure the proper insurance policy for Plaintiff.

Petition Text

1,161 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR CRAIG COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TYLER ALMAND dba DOUBLE T RANCH, Plaintiff, vs. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP; RISK PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC.; OVERMAN INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, a division of USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; AND STEVE MCCONNELL; Defendants. Case No.: CJ-26-26 PETITION Plaintiff Tyler Almand ("Plaintiff" or "Almand") states the following causes of action against the Defendants The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc., Risk Placement Services, Inc., Overman Insurance Agency, LLC, and Steve McConnell. 1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Vinita, Craig County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant The Hartford Insurance Group (The Hartford) is a foreign corporation headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut, and doing business throughout the state of Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Risk Placement Services, Inc., (RPS) is a foreign corporation headquartered in Clinton, Iowa, and doing business throughout northeast Oklahoma. 4. Defendant Overman Insurance Agency, LLC, (Overman) is a former domestic for profit corporate division of USI Insurance Services, LLC, (USI) and is located in Bartlesville, Washington County, Oklahoma. 5. Defendant Steve McConnell (McConnell) is an insurance agent with Overman and/or USI and is a citizen of Bartlesville, Washington County, Oklahoma. 6. The events giving rise to this litigation all relate to Defendants’ collective failure to properly insure Plaintiff’s equipment which is stored at his home in Vinita. FACTS 7. In October of 2023, Plaintiff was in the market for livestock transit insurance to cover his trucking operation. Accordingly, he approached Defendant McConnell in his capacity as an insurance agent with Defendant Overman. Throughout the procurement process, Plaintiff explained to employees at Defendant Overman his insurance needs. 8. Plaintiff’s requests were not extensive or complicated; he simply needed livestock transit insurance that would cover livestock he hauled in his livestock trailer. 9. Defendants McConnell, Overman, USI, and RPS secured a policy from Defendant The Hartford for livestock transit coverage with limits of $150,000.00 for any one vehicle and $1,000.00 for any one animal. 10. At the time Defendants were procuring the livestock transit policy for Plaintiff, the only livestock trailer he owned was a 1994 Wilson trailer. Plaintiff provided Defendants all information needed to insure the 1994 Wilson trailer. 11. Despite knowing Plaintiff owned and wanted to insure the 1994 Wilson trailer, the policy issued by Defendants insured a 2003 Merritt livestock trailer. Almand did not own a 2003 Merritt livestock trailer. Defendants procured insurance on the wrong trailer. Almand was unaware of Defendants’ mistake. 12. Almand believed he had in place a viable livestock transit policy and began hauling cattle. 13. On November 25, 2024, Almand replaced the 1994 Wilson trailer with a 2021 Barrett trailer. The two trailers are virtually identical and Almand used the new trailer for the same purpose as his former trailer. 14. After obtaining the new trailer, Almand attempted to notify Defendants that he had replaced the former trailer. However, he could not get in contact with any of them. 15. On December 16, 2024, less than 30 days from purchasing the replacement trailer, Almand was involved in a car wreck while hauling cattle. Some of the cattle being hauled were injured or killed in the wreck. 16. Plaintiff reported the loss to Defendant The Hartford. 17. On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff had a telephone call with an insurance adjuster who worked for Defendant The Hartford. 18. The adjuster finished the telephone call and immediately denied the claim. Defendant The Hartford denied the claim due to the 2021 Barrett trailer not being a listed vehicle on Plaintiff’s policy. 19. The denial letter issued by Defendant The Hartford was emailed to Plaintiff on December 17, 2024, the same day Plaintiff spoke with an adjuster for Defendant The Hartford. Therefore, Defendant The Hartford conducted no investigation into why the 2021 Barrett trailer was not listed on the policy. 20. In addition to conducting no investigation into the facts of the claim, Defendant The Hartford also ignored a policy endorsement that extends coverage to replacement vehicles. Indeed, Defendant The Hartford’s denial letter did not even mention the replacement vehicle endorsement. BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT THE HARTFORD 21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Petition. 22. Plaintiff purchased a contract of insurance with Defendant The Hartford. Plaintiff paid all required premiums and at the time of the loss the policy was in full force and effect. 23. Plaintiff timely reported the loss to Defendant The Hartford and satisfied all conditions precedent to state a valid claim for benefits under the policy. 24. Defendant The Hartford breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiff by failing to pay Plaintiff the benefits owed under the terms of the insurance policy. 25. As a result of Defendant The Hartford’s breach of the insurance contract, Plaintiff suffered damages. BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AGAINST DEFENDANT THE HARTFORD 26. Plaintiff incorporated paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Petition. 27. Defendant The Hartford owed Plaintiff the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it handled Plaintiff’s insurance claim. 28. Defendant The Hartford has breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in the following acts and omissions: a. Failing to perform a proper investigation in regarding Plaintiff’s claim. b. Failing to pay the full and fair amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of their insurance policy; c. Refusing, without proper cause, to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed under the insurance contract and pursuant to Oklahoma law. d. Handling Plaintiff’s insurance claim in a manner that violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§ 1250.1-1250.16. e. Purposefully and wrongfully failing to communicate all coverages and benefits applicable to the Plaintiff's claim. f. Forcing Plaintiff to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits to which he was entitled under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. g. Failing to perform a fair and objective investigation of Plaintiff's claim. h. Denying Plaintiff's claim without any investigation into the circumstances of the loss. i. Putting its interest in maximizing financial gains and limiting disbursements above the interests of the Plaintiffs. 29. The conduct of Defendant The Hartford constitutes bad faith and is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contact between the parties that resulted in Plaintiff suffering damages. NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS RISK PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC.; OVERMAN INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC; USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; and STEVE MCCONNELL 30. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 if this Petition. 31. Defendants Risk Placement Services, Inc.; Overman Insurance Agency, LLC; USI Insurance Services, LLC; and Steve McConnel (collectively "Agency Defendants") owed a duty to Plaintiff to obtain insurance on the vehicle Plaintiff requested. 32. Plaintiff provided the Agency Defendants all information required to allow the Agency Defendants to procure the proper insurance policy. 33. Despite having all necessary information, the Agency Defendants failed to procure the proper insurance for the Plaintiff. 34. The conduct of the Agency Defendants constitutes negligence which resulted in Plaintiff being damaged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against all Defendants for actual and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Bradford D. Barron, OBA No. 17571 Samuel B. Barron, OBA No. 36395 THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 369 Claremore, Oklahoma 74018 918-341-8402 Phone 918-515-4691 Fax [email protected] [email protected]