CJ-2026-248 - Katherine Abernathy v. American Mercury Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut right to the chase: an insurance company allegedly told a homeowner there “shouldn’t be a problem” with her storm damage claim, then turned around and denied it completely—after sending an inspector who barely looked at the house, low-balled the repair costs, and refused to even look at multiple professional roofing estimates saying the whole roof needed to be replaced. And now, the homeowner is suing for $75,000, accusing the insurer of not just breaking the contract, but straight-up fraud. Welcome to the wild west of home insurance, folks, where your policy might be worth less than the paper it’s printed on—unless you’re willing to drag your insurer into court and fight for every shingle.

Meet Katherine Abernathy, a Canadian County homeowner living her best Oklahoma life at 805 Abigail Lane, Yukon, until May 17, 2025, when a serious wind and hailstorm rolled through like an angry ex with a grudge. Hail pelted the roof, wind ripped at shingles, water leaked inside, and soft metals got dented like a junkyard after a tornado. In other words: the kind of damage that makes you call your insurance company and say, “Hey, remember that check I write every month? Time to cash in.” So Katherine did the responsible thing. She filed a claim with American Mercury Insurance Company—her long-time insurer—and even hired a roofing contractor to inspect the damage. The contractor took photos, did a full assessment, and dropped the verdict: full roof replacement required. No patchwork, no “let’s flip a few shingles.” This roof was done.

Mercury, for its part, didn’t exactly rush to help. Instead of sending their own adjuster, they outsourced the inspection to a third-party company called Seek Now—because nothing says “I care about your home” like hiring a firm with a name that sounds like a dating app. But here’s the kicker: during that inspection, a Mercury representative actually told Katherine’s roofing contractor there “shouldn’t be a problem” with the claim. Cue the record scratch. That’s like a judge saying, “Don’t worry, you’re totally getting that promotion,” then firing you the next day. So when Mercury later denied the claim outright—first saying there was “no storm damage,” then backtracking to say the damage didn’t exceed the deductible—it wasn’t just frustrating. It felt like a betrayal.

Katherine, clearly not one to roll over, pushed back. She sent photos. She sent the contractor’s estimate. She asked for a reinspection. Mercury sent an adjuster—finally—but their new assessment was, in legal terms, a joke. They claimed only a few individual shingles were damaged and offered to replace them one by one. Yes, you read that right. Not a section, not a slope—per shingle. It’s like if your car got T-boned and the insurance company said, “We’ll replace one hubcap.” And their math? Conveniently came in just under the deductible. Suspicious? Katherine thought so. Especially since she brought in a second roofing contractor—because one opinion isn’t enough when you’re fighting an insurance giant—and they agreed: full roof replacement. Necessary. Urgent. Not cosmetic. Not optional.

But Mercury wasn’t having it. They refused to reinspect. They refused to budge. They closed the claim. And they left Katherine with a roof that’s slowly turning into a swimming pool every time it rains. Oh, and they cited a policy exclusion about “cosmetic damage to metal roof coverings”—except the damage wasn’t just cosmetic, and it wasn’t just on metal. The filing alleges Mercury cherry-picked parts of the policy to justify a denial, while ignoring the very real water leaks, structural concerns, and safety hazards. At this point, Katherine wasn’t just out a roof—she was out peace of mind, time, and money. So she did what any reasonable person would do: she hired a lawyer and sued.

Now, let’s break down what she’s actually suing for—because this isn’t just about a roof. Katherine is making three major claims, and they’re escalating fast. First: Breach of Contract. Simple enough. She paid her premiums. She had a policy. The storm happened. She filed a claim. Mercury said no. That, in legal terms, is a broken promise. Second: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—a fancy way of saying, “You didn’t just break the contract; you did it like a jerk.” Insurers have a legal obligation to treat their customers fairly, investigate claims properly, and not drag their feet just to avoid paying. But according to Katherine, Mercury did all of that: ignored evidence, refused reinspection, forced her to hire a lawyer, and used adjusters who seem to work more for the company than for the customer. And third—this is the spicy one—Constructive Fraud. That’s not alleging she was scammed when she bought the policy, but that Mercury misled her during the claims process. They said there “shouldn’t be a problem,” then denied everything. They failed to disclose their pattern of lowballing claims. They acted like they were helping, then slammed the door. That, the filing argues, wasn’t just bad service—it was deceitful.

And what does Katherine want? $75,000 in damages. Is that a lot? For a roof? Maybe. But this isn’t just about the roof. That number includes not just the repair costs she’s out of pocket, but also emotional distress, loss of security, and—crucially—punitive damages. That means she’s not just asking to be made whole; she wants to punish Mercury for what she sees as a pattern of shady behavior. And get this: the filing claims this wasn’t a one-off mistake. It suggests Mercury has a company-wide practice of underpaying claims, using biased adjusters, and training employees to deny or minimize payouts. If that’s true, Katherine isn’t just fighting for her roof—she’s trying to expose an entire system designed to screw over homeowners when they’re most vulnerable.

So here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t even the per-shingle repair estimate (though seriously, who thinks that’s a real solution?). It’s the audacity of saying “there shouldn’t be a problem” and then creating the biggest problem of all. Insurance is supposed to be a safety net. You pay in, and when disaster hits, they’ve got your back. But too often, it feels like the net has holes—especially when the company profits from not paying out. Katherine Abernathy isn’t asking for a mansion. She’s asking for a dry attic and a roof that won’t collapse in the next storm. And if Mercury really did cook the books to avoid paying a legitimate claim, then $75,000 might be the cheapest lesson they ever learn. We’re not rooting for lawsuits—but we are rooting for accountability. And if that means a jury looks at a “per shingle” repair plan and says, “You’ve got to be kidding me,” then justice might finally get its deductible.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Randall K. Calvert

Calvert Law Firm

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Katherine Abernathy individual
Rep: Randall K. Calvert, Andrew R. Davis

Defendants

American Mercury Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Constructive Fraud	Plaintiff seeks compensation for insurance company's alleged bad faith and fraudulent conduct in denying and underpaying her insurance claim for storm damage to her property.

Petition Text

1,589 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA KATHERINE ABERNATHY Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ) Case No. CJ 2024-218 ) Jury Trial Demanded ) ) ) ) PAUL HESSE PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff Katherine Abernathy ("Plaintiff") and alleges the following facts and causes of action against the Defendant American Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury"). 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Canadian County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Mercury is an Oklahoma insurance corporation that sells and services insurance policies in the State of Oklahoma, to Oklahoma residents. 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. 4. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with Mercury to provide coverage to her dwelling, other structures, and personal property located in Canadian County, Oklahoma ("Insured Property"). Mercury issued homeowners' policy No. OKHP0000039595 ("Policy"). 5. Plaintiff paid the premiums on the Policy. 6. On or about May 17, 2025, the Insured Property sustained extensive damage from a significant wind and hailstorm, including but not limited to hail impacts all over the roof shingles, wind-compromised shingles, areas of interior leaking and water damage, soft metals pelted by hail, dents and damage to window screens, exterior doors, and other such property, etc. 7. Plaintiff had a roofing contractor inspect the Insured Property. The roofing contractor inspected the damage, took several photos, and recommended a full roof replacement. 8. As a result of the extensive storm damage, Plaintiff properly and timely submitted a claim to Mercury for the storm damage – Claim No. OKHO-00012173 ("Claim"). 9. Mercury failed to fully and accurately inspect the Insured Property. 10. Mercury hired Seek Now to inspect the damage to the Insured Property. Mercury's representative told Plaintiff's roofing contractor there "shouldn't be a problem" with the Claim. 11. However, Mercury said there was no storm damage and denied the Claim. 12. Plaintiff disputed the denial, submitted several photos of the damage and the estimate from her roofing contractor, and requested a reinspection of the Insured Property. 13. Mercury deployed an adjuster to reinspect the Insured Property. 14. Mercury notified Plaintiff the Policy does not cover cosmetic damage to metal roof coverings and referred Plaintiff to the Policy for the exclusion. Mercury told Plaintiff the covered portion of the loss did not exceed her deductible and it would not pay the Claim. 15. Neither Mercury nor Seek Now considered the full extent of the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. Further, they disregarded the opinions and findings of Plaintiff's roofing contractor with respect to the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. 16. Mercury's estimate found damage to individual roof shingles and provided for their repair on a per shingle basis, among other things. This was a "low-ball" estimate that Mercury intentionally prepared to ensure that the damage amount fell below the Policy deductible. 17. Plaintiff had another roofing contractor inspect the Insured Property. The roofing contractor agreed with the need for a full replacement and requested reinspection by Mercury. 18. Mercury did not change its position and refused the reinspection. 19. Plaintiff hired another representative, who prepared an estimate that thoroughly details the extent of the wind and hail damage sustained by the Insured Property and contains numerous high quality photographs taken of the storm damage to the Insured Property. 20. Despite multiple recommendations for a full roof replacement and documented evidenced in support, Mercury told Plaintiff full roof replacement is not warranted. 21. Mercury disregarded, rejected, and/or failed to address the issues raised by Plaintiff’s representatives or the full extent of the wind and hail damage to the Insured Property. 22. Mercury refused to pay and closed the Claim; and to this date, Mercury has steadfastly refused to provide any coverage or pay Plaintiff anything for her wind and hail Claim. 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes Mercury knowingly and intentionally, without just cause, understated the damage and condition of the Insured Property to deny the Claim. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 24. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 25. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with Mercury to provide coverage for her dwelling, other structures, and personal property located at 805 Abigail Lane, Yukon, Oklahoma 73099. The Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 26. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Mercury of the Claim arising from wind and hail damage on May 17, 2025, which significantly damaged the Insured Property. 27. Plaintiff complied in all material ways with the terms of the Policy. 28. Mercury breached its contractual obligations under the Policy by failing to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed under the terms the Policy and for wrongfully denying the Claim. 29. As a result of Mercury’s breach and wrongful conduct, Plaintiff incurred damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 30. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 31. Mercury owed Plaintiff a duty to deal fairly and act in good faith. 32. Mercury breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff. The actions stated herein violate Mercury’s duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff. 33. In particular, Mercury breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably, and in bad faith, engaging in (at least) the following acts and omissions: (i) failing to disclose, explain, and provide all coverages and benefits applicable to the Claim; (ii) failing to properly and timely investigate and pay the Claim; (iii) forcing Plaintiff to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits to which they were entitled under the terms of the Policy; (iv) failing to communicate timely and in good faith with Plaintiff; (v) concealing information and misrepresenting facts and circumstances to Plaintiff; (vi) failing to follow or comply with applicable Oklahoma law; (vii) utilizing adjusters and third parties who consistently work to adjust claims in a biased and unfair manner toward insureds, but for the benefit of Mercury; (viii) refusing to fully and fairly pay Plaintiff’s claim with no legitimate basis; and (ix) failing to give equal consideration to Plaintiff’s interests in handling the Claim. 34. As a consequence of Mercury’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered financial loss, loss of peace of mind and security, and has suffered emotional distress, worry and anguish, financial distress, and embarrassment, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. 35. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that Mercury’s conduct during the handling of the Claim was not an isolated event, but rather was consistent with approved company-wide practices or policies that, among other things, reward and encourage the systematic reduction, delay, or avoidance of the proper payment of valid claims submitted to Mercury. 36. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages to punish Mercury and deter others from similar conduct in the future. Mercury intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with Plaintiff, and/or acted recklessly, in disregard of its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured Plaintiff. As a result of this reckless and/or intentional conduct by Mercury, the Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to recover punitive damages in excess of $75,000 to punish Mercury and deter others from similar conduct in the future. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Fraud) 37. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 38. Mercury owed Plaintiff a heightened duty, including but not limited to the duty of good faith and fair dealing, to communicate fully, fairly, and honestly with Plaintiff. 39. Mercury breached this duty by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) the following: (i) Mercury misrepresented that there would be “no problem” with the Claim; (ii) Mercury failed to disclose all material information about Mercury’s treatment of insureds, including but not limited to bad faith claims handling practices on property damage claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision; and (iii) Mercury failed to disclose to Plaintiff any of the above misrepresentations and/or omissions, any facts underlying these misrepresentations and/or omissions, or any material facts regarding Mercury’s treatment of insureds, including but not limited to its handling of property damage claims. 40. Mercury knew it had a duty to truthfully disclose the facts it concealed or misrepresented, and Mercury knew those facts were material to the Plaintiff and the Policy. 41. At all relevant times, Mercury had full knowledge of its concealment and the falsity of its statements. Mercury nevertheless presented them as true, correct, and accurate. 42. Mercury concealed and misrepresented these facts to induce the Plaintiff to rely on the concealment and/or misrepresentation and to the detriment of the Plaintiff. 43. As a result of Mercury’s breach of duty, Mercury gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiff to substantial detriment and prejudice. Mercury’s breaches induced Plaintiff to accept, purchase, and renew the Policy with Mercury, to the detriment of Plaintiff. 44. As a consequence of Mercury’s conduct, Plaintiffs has been damaged, including financial loss, loss of peace of mind and security, and has suffered emotional distress, worry and anguish, financial distress, and embarrassment, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. 45. Mercury’s actions were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, fraudulent, and conducted with a conscious disregard for the rights of their insured, the Plaintiff. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff Katherine Abernathy respectfully requests she be awarded actual, compensatory, and exemplary damages against the Defendant American Mercury Insurance Company in excess of $75,000, together with any further relief this Court deems appropriate, including interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Respectfully submitted, Randall K. Calvert, OBA #14154 Andrew R. Davis, OBA #32763 CALVERT LAW FIRM 1041 NW Grand Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 (405) 848-5000 Telephone (405) 848-5052 Facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs