CJ-2026-2012 - David S. Rainey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: insurance companies are supposed to be the cavalry, not the arsonist. But in this Oklahoma courtroom drama, State Farm isn’t the hero showing up with a hose — it’s the one allegedly standing there with a lit match while a house floods, ignoring phone calls, and then acting surprised when someone sues for $150,000. That’s right — a man’s duplex turned into a moldy, waterlogged disaster after a plumbing failure, his family tried to get help, the insurer ghosted them for months, and now the estate is demanding justice. And popcorn? We’ve got a whole damn theater.

So who are we talking about? Meet John G. Rainey — a regular guy, presumably fond of drywall and not floods, who had the misfortune of both getting seriously ill and owning a home insured by State Farm. He bought a policy — number 36-EW-9751-9, because nothing says drama like a good policy number — and presumably paid his premiums like a responsible adult. But in March 2024, things went sideways. John became physically and mentally incapacitated (the filing doesn’t say how, just that it happened), which triggered a guardianship case in Oklahoma County. Then, adding insult to injury, a plumbing failure flooded his duplex. Water damage is bad enough when you’re healthy and alert — imagine it happening while you’re incapacitated and unable to lift a finger to stop it. The house, left unattended and unrepaired, just kept deteriorating. And according to the lawsuit, State Farm? Nowhere to be found.

Now enter David S. Rainey — brother, executor, and now accidental insurance warrior. After John’s passing on March 28, 2026, David was officially named Personal Representative of the estate, meaning he’s now the one legally responsible for cleaning up more than just emotional loose ends. He’s dealing with a literal mess: a water-damaged duplex that’s reportedly lost over $75,000 in value thanks to unchecked mold, structural decay, and the magical ability of insurance companies to disappear when you need them most. David reached out to State Farm — like, actually did his homework, sent letters, played by the rules. On June 17, 2025, he sent a formal demand asking them to send an adjuster to assess the damage. Crickets. Then, on October 16, 2025 — four months later — he sent another letter, basically saying, “Hello? Can you please just send someone to look at the house?” Still nothing. No inspection. No offer. No “we’re on it.” Just silence, broken only by the sound of drywall slowly turning into a science experiment.

So why are we in court? Because David isn’t just mad — he’s lawyered up. And not with some random dude off Craigslist; he’s got Juston R. Givens and Zachary A. Carson from Perri Dunn PLLC, which sounds like a law firm that specializes in making insurance companies sweat. The lawsuit lays out two big claims. First: breach of contract. Simple version? You sold me insurance. I paid for it. Something bad happened. You’re supposed to help. You didn’t. That’s a broken promise. The policy was active, the damage was real, and State Farm allegedly didn’t lift a finger to fulfill its end of the deal — not to inspect, not to repair, not even to pretend they cared.

Second claim? Even juicier: breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. This isn’t just about breaking a contract — it’s about being a bad actor while doing it. Insurance companies, unlike your sketchy roommate who borrowed your lawnmower and never gave it back, have a legal obligation to treat their customers fairly. They can’t drag their feet on purpose, misinterpret policies to avoid paying, or ignore claims hoping they’ll go away. But that’s exactly what the filing accuses State Farm of doing: ignoring notices, refusing to investigate, delaying everything, and generally treating the claim like it was a spam email from “Nigerian Prince.” The lawsuit even lists a full 10-part checklist of bad behavior — from “unnecessarily delaying the claim” to “refusing to resolve ambiguities in favor of the insured” — like it’s a bingo card for insurance malpractice.

Now, what does David want? A cool $150,000 — split into $75,000 for the contract breach and another $75,000 for the bad faith handling. Is that a lot? For a flooded duplex, maybe not. Water damage can get expensive, especially when it’s left to fester for over a year. Mold remediation, flooring replacement, electrical work, structural repairs — we’re not talking about mopping up a basement here. We’re talking about a full-scale rehab. And that’s before you factor in the emotional toll, the legal fees, and the sheer frustration of begging an insurance giant for basic help and being treated like a nuisance. Plus — and this is the spicy part — the lawsuit specifically asks for punitive damages. That means David isn’t just looking to be made whole — he wants State Farm to feel it. Punitive damages aren’t about compensation; they’re about punishment. They’re the legal equivalent of a slow clap followed by, “You had one job.”

And here’s the kicker: David’s demanding a jury trial. Which means this isn’t going to be settled quietly in a backroom. No, this could end up in front of real Oklahomans — people who’ve probably also had a nightmare insurance claim — who get to decide whether State Farm played fair. And let’s be honest: nothing terrifies a big corporation more than a jury full of people who’ve ever argued with a customer service rep about a denied roof repair.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re not saying every insurance company is evil. But this case has all the classic signs of corporate indifference wrapped in red tape. A man gets sick. His house floods. His family tries to help. The insurer does nothing. The damage grows. The bills pile up. And the company? Still MIA. The most absurd part isn’t even the $150,000 ask — it’s that this should’ve never gotten this far. One phone call. One adjuster visit. One decent human response in March 2024 could’ve saved everyone time, money, and legal drama. Instead, we’ve got a probate case, a guardianship, a death, and now a lawsuit that reads like a revenge arc from a legal drama.

We’re rooting for David not because he wants a windfall, but because he’s fighting for basic accountability. Insurance isn’t a magic trick — it’s a promise. And when a company takes your money for years and then vanishes when disaster strikes, they don’t get to play innocent. They get sued. And if Oklahoma County gives David his day in court, maybe — just maybe — State Farm will learn that ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. Especially when the problem is now represented by counsel, demanding a jury, and ready to turn a flooded duplex into a courtroom spectacle.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Juston R. Givens & Zachary A. Carson

Perri Dunn PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

David S. Rainey individual
Rep: Juston R. Givens, OBA #19102 & Zachary A. Carson, OBA #34312

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached insurance contract, causing damages in excess of $75,000.
2	breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling insurance claim.

Petition Text

1,258 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DAVID S. RAINES, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN G. RAINES, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY MAR 17 2026 RICK WARREN COURT CLERK Case No. 88 PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, David S. Rainey, Personal Representative of the Estate of John G. Rainey, ("Plaintiff"), and for his causes of action against the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm" or "Defendant"), alleges and states as follows: THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. David S. Rainey ("Personal Representative") is the Personal Representative of the Estate of John G. Rainey, Deceased, under the Oklahoma County District Court probate action, Case No. PB-2024-503. John G. Rainey ("Decedent"), was the policy holder for the policy under which this action is being filed. 2. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is a national insurance carrier doing business in the State of Oklahoma. 3. State Farm is licensed to transact insurance business under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 4. Venue is proper in this Court as this proceeding arises out of and relates to events which all occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. John G. Rainey purchased insurance from State Farm, policy number 36-EW-9751-9 (the “Policy”), which was in effect at all times relevant hereto. 7. In and around March 2024, John G. Rainey became mentally and physically incapacitated. That same month he became the subject of a guardianship proceeding in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Case No. PG-2024-232) and later died on March 28, 2026. David S. Rainey was made Personal Representative of the Estate pursuant to Order of the Court on May 9, 2024, in the probate action in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Case No. PB-2024-503). 8. In and around March 2024, the duplex home that was the Decedent’s residence sustained water damage due to plumbing failure. As a result of that flooding and the compounding damage over time due to State Farm’s failure to address the same, significant damages have accrued in excess of $75,000.00 to Plaintiff. 9. State Farm was put on notice regarding the damage at the time by certain individuals who had reason to know including Decedent’s family. However, State Farm refused to acknowledge any such notice or pay any attention to the matter until months later after David S. Rainey had been appointed Personal Representative of Decedent’s estate. 10. Upon being appointed Personal Representative, David S. Rainey contacted State Farm and began working with them to address the home damage. 11. On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to State Farm demanding that State Farm send an adjuster to complete a repair and remodel estimate for Decedent’s home pursuant to the contractual obligations under the Policy. 12. On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff sent a further demand letter to State Farm demanding that State Farm send an adjuster or retain contractors to personally inspect the home. 13. Throughout the time since the damage occurred, Plaintiff has provided accurate information to State Farm in order to satisfy its procedural requirements but at no time has State Farm responded meaningfully to resolve Plaintiff’s claims or perform its contractual obligations under the Policy. 14. Despite Plaintiff’s diligent efforts to comply with State Farm’s requests and demands for performance, State Farm has failed and refused to satisfy the contractual obligations it owes to Plaintiff under the Policy. Furthermore, State Farm has breached the duties owed to Plaintiff as its Insured. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 14, above, as though fully set forth herein. 15. Plaintiff is the Named Insured under the insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by State Farm. 16. In turn, Plaintiff has made repeated demands upon State Farm. 17. State Farm has failed and refused to protect the interest of Plaintiff with respect to the damages pursuant to the Policy. 18. State Farm has a duty to act faithfully and perform its obligations under the contract. 19. State Farm has breached its obligations to Plaintiff as the Named Insured under the insurance policy issued on behalf of Plaintiff. 20. State Farm has breached its express and implied obligations to Plaintiff by failing to provide coverage for the liability of Plaintiff. 21. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct result of the acts and omissions by State Farm. 22. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on its breach of contract claim against State Farm, including interest, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22, above, as though fully set forth herein. 23. A special relationship exists between Plaintiff and State Farm which imposed upon State Farm a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff. 24. In its handling of Plaintiff’s claims under the Policy, and as a matter of standard business practices in handling like claims under such policies, State Farm breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith toward Plaintiff by: (a) Intentionally misconstruing and misrepresenting coverage under the Policy in order to avoid full and fair payment; (b) Refusing to timely, promptly and properly evaluate Plaintiff’s claim; (c) Refusing to authorize, verify and provide Plaintiff benefits for reasons contrary to the provisions of the Policy; (d) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt, fair and full investigation and reasonable handling of claims arising under this Policy and similar policies; (e) Unnecessarily delaying or ignoring the covered claim and failing to respond to the claim and Plaintiff’s inquiries regarding the same; (f) Refusing to promptly and properly investigate Plaintiff’s claim under the Policy; (g) Not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable resolution of Plaintiff's claim under the Policy; (h) Ignoring the reasonable expectation of its insured, Plaintiff; (i) Refusing to properly and timely provide Plaintiff with the Policy benefits when it knew or should have known Plaintiff's claims under the Policy were valid and such benefits were due and owed to Plaintiff; and (j) Refusing to apply the laws of construction in order to resolve any ambiguity in favor of the insured to allow for coverage under the Policy. All of which are in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and which resulted in a financial benefit to Defendant. 25. As a result of State Farm’s breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has sustained damages including costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Additionally, State Farm’s actions, as alleged in this Petition, warrant the imposition of punitive damages, as allowed under Oklahoma law. RELIEF REQUESTED 26. Plaintiff seeks a money judgment in excess of $75,000.00 for damages incurred as a result of State Farm’s breach of the insurance contract and a money judgment in excess of $75,000.00 for damages incurred as a result of State Farm’s breach of duties owed to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, David S. Rainey, Personal Representative of the Estate of John G. Rainey, prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, for damages in excess of $75,000.00, as well as court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other recoverable costs and/or expenses allowable by Oklahoma law, as well as any such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, Juston R. Givens, OBA #19102 Zachary A. Carson, OBA #34312 PERRI DUNN PLLC 100 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 3280 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 724-8543 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED