CJ-2026-98 - Sharon Villalobos v. Myca Sanderson

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: how many times have you almost run a red light, then caught yourself and muttered, “Okay, that would’ve been bad”? Well, Myca Sanderson didn’t catch himself—and now, nearly two years later, we’re in court not just because of his foot on the gas, but because his insurance company allegedly sat on its hands like it was meditating, not handling a claim. This isn’t just a car crash case. This is a slow-motion betrayal wrapped in paperwork, premium payments, and one woman’s desperate attempt to get the help she paid for while trying to make a living as an Uber driver.

Meet Sharon Villalobos. She’s not a thrill-seeker, not a professional plaintiff, not even someone who seems to enjoy confrontation. She’s just a regular Oklahoman trying to get by, driving for Uber to earn some extra cash—maybe even pay the deductible on that very insurance policy she faithfully paid for through USAA. On June 27, 2024, she was doing everything right: driving north on N. 193rd East Avenue in Catoosa, green light in her favor, en route to pick up a passenger. The gig economy grind was on. Then—BAM. Out of nowhere, Myca Sanderson, barreling westbound off the I-44 ramp, blew straight through a red light and T-boned her. The kind of impact that doesn’t just damage metal—it changes lives. According to the filing, Villalobos suffered “severe personal injuries,” racked up major medical bills, lost wages, and continues to deal with ongoing pain and diminished ability to work. And let’s not forget the emotional toll—because no one signs up to be collateral damage in someone else’s moment of distraction.

Now, here’s where it gets juicy. Sanderson didn’t just cause a crash—he admitted fault at the scene and got cited for disobeying a traffic signal. Oh, and get this: he wasn’t even insured. In Oklahoma, where liability insurance is required by law, he was driving around like a financial time bomb. So when Villalobos looked to his insurance to cover her damages? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Which means she had to turn to her own insurer—USAA—for help under her Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage. And not just any coverage: she had specifically paid extra for a “RideShare Gap Protection” endorsement. Translation: she didn’t just assume she was covered while driving for Uber—she paid to make damn sure she was. It’s like buying the extended warranty on your phone because you know you’re going to drop it in the toilet eventually. She did her homework. She played by the rules.

But USAA? They played hard to get. According to the petition, Villalobos filed her claim within 24 hours of the crash. That’s faster than most people respond to a group text. Yet, despite repeated attempts to contact them, USAA ghosted her. No timely investigation. No explanation. No benefits. Just silence, delays, and a growing stack of medical bills. It wasn’t until 15 months later—October 3, 2025—that USAA finally coughed up the UM policy limits. And sure, they eventually paid, but only after she hired lawyers. Only after she suffered months of financial strain, emotional distress, and the indignity of being treated like a nuisance instead of a customer who had been in a life-altering crash. The filing calls this a “belated payment” that “does not remedy the harm.” And honestly? It’s hard to argue with that. It’s like your landlord ignoring your broken heater all winter, then fixing it in April and saying, “See? All good now.”

So why are we in court? Legally speaking, Villalobos is throwing the book at both defendants. Against Sanderson: negligence (he screwed up and caused the crash) and negligence per se (he broke traffic laws—running a red light and driving uninsured—which automatically counts as negligence under Oklahoma law). These are the “you ran the red light, dummy” claims. Then, against USAA: breach of contract (you took my money, promised coverage, and didn’t deliver) and bad faith (you didn’t just delay—you did it unreasonably, without justification, and with total disregard for my suffering). The bad faith claim is the real kicker here. In insurance law, companies aren’t just supposed to pay when they feel like it—they have a legal duty to act fairly and promptly. When they don’t, and when their conduct is “willful, malicious, or reckless,” courts can slap them with punitive damages—not to compensate the victim, but to punish the company and say, “Don’t do this again.” And that’s exactly what Villalobos is asking for.

She wants over $75,000 in actual damages—medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—and she wants more in punitive damages. Is $75,000 a lot? For a car crash with long-term injuries, legal fees, and lost income? Honestly, not really. It’s not a life-changing sum, especially if her medical bills alone are in the tens of thousands. But the punitive damages? That’s where this case could get spicy. If the jury believes USAA acted in bad faith—dragging its feet despite clear liability and a policy that explicitly covered rideshare gaps—they could hit the insurer with a much bigger number. We’re talking “boardroom panic” territory. And let’s be clear: USAA is no mom-and-pop shop. It’s a giant, well-funded insurer that markets itself as the trusted choice for military families. If they’re found to have mistreated a policyholder in crisis, the reputational hit could be worse than the financial one.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that Sanderson ran a red light. People do dumb things. The absurdity lies in the aftermath. Sharon Villalobos did everything right. She obeyed the law. She had insurance. She paid extra for the right coverage. She reported the claim immediately. And still, she was treated like a problem to be managed, not a human being in pain. Meanwhile, USAA gets to play the victim in its own narrative—like, “Oh, we’re so sorry, claims take time!”—while sitting on money that could’ve helped someone rebuild their life. And let’s not forget: she was working for Uber, an app that already treats drivers like disposable cogs. She didn’t need her insurer to treat her the same way.

We’re rooting for the principle here. Not because we want to bankrupt USAA, but because someone has to remind these companies that insurance isn’t a game. It’s a promise. And when you sell a “RideShare Gap Protection” endorsement, you don’t get to pretend it doesn’t exist the second someone actually needs it. This case isn’t just about $75,000. It’s about whether a working person can trust the systems they pay into. And if the answer is “only if you sue,” then the system’s already broken.

Jury trial demanded? Oh, we’re here for it.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Joel A. LaCourse, Benjamin J. Oxford, and Zachary M. Keen

LaCourse Law, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Sharon Villalobos individual
Rep: Joel A. LaCourse, Benjamin J. Oxford, and Zachary M. Keen of LaCourse Law, PLLC

Defendants

Myca Sanderson individual
United Services Automobile Association business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence – Against Defendant Sanderson	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sanderson was negligent in causing a car accident
2	Negligence Per Se – Against Defendant Sanderson	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sanderson violated Oklahoma statutes requiring drivers to obey traffic control devices and maintain liability insurance
3	Breach of Contract – Against Defendant USAA	Plaintiff alleges Defendant USAA breached its insurance contract by failing to provide coverage
4	Bad Faith – Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Against USAA	Plaintiff alleges Defendant USAA acted in bad faith by unreasonably delaying payment of benefits

Petition Text

1,612 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROGERS COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SHARON VILLALOBOS, an individual ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. MYCA SANDERSON, an individual, and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a foreign company, Defendants. Case No.: CJ- Judge: FILED DISTRICT COURT ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 20, 2026 4:23 PM CATHI EDWARDS, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-98 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Sharon Villalobos, by and through her counsel of record, Joel A. LaCourse, Benjamin J. Oxford, and Zachary M. Keen of LaCourse Law, PLLC, and hereby states her causes of action against the Defendants, Myca Sanderson and United Services Automobile Association. In support of her causes of action, Plaintiff hereby alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Sharon Villalobos (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual residing in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma at all times relevant hereto. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Myca Sanderson (hereinafter “Defendant Sanderson”) is a resident of Rogers County, Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant United Services Automobile Association (hereinafter “USAA”) is an insurance company licensed and authorized to transact business in the State of Oklahoma, including the issuance of automobile insurance policies containing Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist ("UM/UIM") coverage, and may be served through the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner pursuant to 36 O.S. § 621. 4. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133, venue is proper for the reason that the acts complained of herein occurred within Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 5. This action is brought before this Court so that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. See 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 6. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein as a court of general jurisdiction. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7. The Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully verbatim herein. 8. On or about June 27, 2024, Plaintiff was operating her vehicle northbound on N. 193rd East Avenue in Catoosa, Oklahoma, lawfully proceeding through an intersection with a green light. 9. Defendant Sanderson, operating a Chevrolet Trailblazer, westbound on the I-44 off-ramp, failed to obey a red traffic signal and violently struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the time of the collision, Defendant Sanderson did not maintain liability insurance coverage as required by Oklahoma law. 10. At the scene of the collision, Defendant Sanderson admitted fault and was cited for failure to obey a traffic control device under 47 O.S. § 11-201. 11. As a direct result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries. 12. As a direct result of the collision, Plaintiff has endured significant physical pain, emotional distress, and financial hardship. She has incurred substantial medical expenses, lost wages, and continues to suffer impairment and diminished earning capacity. 13. At the time of the collision, Plaintiff had accepted a ride request through the Uber driving application and was en route to pick up the assigned passenger. 14. Plaintiff had purchased an automobile insurance policy from USAA that included UM/UIM coverage, and Plaintiff specifically purchased and paid premiums for a RideShare Gap Protection endorsement to ensure she would have uninterrupted protection while performing rideshare services. 15. Plaintiff reasonably relied on USAA’s representations and the structure of the policy. Based on coverage she purchased, including the RideShare Gap Protection endorsement, Plaintiff was fully protected by UM/UIM coverage while performing rideshare services for Uber, including the period during which she was driving to pick up the assigned passenger. 16. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the collision, Plaintiff quickly submitted claims under her USAA policy, including claims for UM benefits and other coverages under the RideShare Gap Protection endorsement. 17. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to communicate with USAA, USAA refused to acknowledge or honor the available UM benefits, failed to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation, and failed to provide prompt or adequate responses, leaving Plaintiff without coverage or clarity during a period of significant financial and personal hardship. 18. Only after months of delay, and only after Plaintiff was forced to obtain legal counsel, did USAA finally tender the UM policy limits on or about October 3, 2025, effectively conceding the existence of coverage while failing to remedy the harm caused by its unreasonable delay, mishandling, and failure to follow proper claims-handling procedures. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered severe injury, financial loss, emotional distress, and disruption to her personal and professional life. Plaintiff has been forced to retain legal counsel and initiate this lawsuit in order to protect her rights and obtain relief, efforts that have required substantial time, expense, and resources, and other damages in excess of $75,000. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence – Against Defendant Sanderson) 20. The Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully verbatim herein. 21. Defendant Sanderson owed Plaintiff a duty to operate his vehicle with reasonable care, to obey traffic control devices, and to avoid foreseeable harm to other motorists. 22. Defendant breached that duty by failing to stop at a red light and unlawfully entering the intersection, causing a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle. 23. Defendant further violated Oklahoma’s statutory duty to maintain liability insurance, thereby compounding his negligence and leaving Plaintiff without recourse against him for her damages. 24. As a direct and proximate result of Sanderson’s negligence, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages described above. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Per Se – Against Defendant Sanderson) 25. The Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully verbatim herein. 26. The Defendant violated 47 O.S. §11-310 et seq., which requires drivers to obey traffic control devices. 27. The Defendant also violated 47. O.S. § 7-601, which requires every motorist operating a motor vehicle in Oklahoma to maintain liability insurance. 28. Plaintiff, as a person injured by his conduct, is within the class of persons intended to be protected by these Statutes, and her injuries are the type of harm the statute seeks to prevent. 29. Defendant’s statutory violation constitutes negligence per se, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages proximately caused thereby. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract – Against Defendant USAA) 30. The Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully verbatim herein. 31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was insured under a valid automobile insurance policy issued by Defendant USAA, which included Uninsured coverage and a Ride Share Gap Protection endorsement. 32. Plaintiff fully performed all obligations under the policy, including timely payments of premiums. 33. Despite its contractual obligations, USAA failed and refused to timely provide coverage to Plaintiff, unreasonably delayed payment, denied collision-related benefits, and withheld UM coverage to which Plaintiff was entitled under the express terms of the policy. 34. Only after months of unjustified delay, repeated unanswered communications, and a complete failure by USAA to fulfill its basic duties under Oklahoma law was Plaintiff forced to retain counsel, incurring additional and entirely avoidable expenses, before USAA finally tendered the UM policy limits. The payment did not remedy the harm caused by USAA’s prolonged and unjustified mishandling of the claim. 35. As a direct and proximate result of USAA’s breach of the insurance contract, Plaintiff sustained damages, including unpaid benefits, additional financial loss caused by delay, emotional distress, and other consequential damages in excess of $75,000. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Bad Faith – Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Against USAA) 36. The Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully verbatim herein. 37. Oklahoma law imposes on every insurer the duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured, including the duty to timely investigate, evaluate, and pay claims when liability is reasonably clear. 38. Plaintiff was an insured under a valid USAA automobile insurance policy that included UM coverage. 39. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the June 27, 2024, collision, Plaintiff submitted a claim for UM benefits to USAA. 40. Despite Plaintiff’s compliance with all policy obligations, USAA failed to timely and reasonably investigate the claim, ignored or failed to respond to Plaintiff’s repeated inquiries, and unreasonably delayed payment of benefits. 41. USAA denied or refused coverage for collision-related benefits without a reasonable basis, even though the Plaintiff’s policy expressly included a Ride Share Gap Protection endorsement. 42. USAA further failed to provide Plaintiff with a timely, reasonable, and adequate explanation for its denials and delays. 43. Only after an extended period of delay, non-responsiveness, and the requirement of Plaintiff hiring counsel did USAA eventually tender its UM policy limits, but this belated payment does not cure its earlier breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. 44. Due to USAA’s refusal to treat its insured fairly, Plaintiff was forced to spend her own money on attorney fees just to secure benefits that should have been promptly paid without litigation. 45. USAA’s conduct was willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and its obligations under Oklahoma law. 46. As a direct and proximate result of USAA’s bad faith conduct, Plaintiff suffered financial losses, emotional distress, and other consequential damages, including the expenses incurred for bringing this litigation, and is entitled to recover both actual and punitive damages. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant relief in the form of a judgment in her favor against the Defendants for actual and compensatory damages arising out of Defendants’ conduct in excess of $75,000, assess exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury that is commensurate with the Defendants’ financial status, pre- and post-judgment interest, award attorney’s fees and costs, and any further relief that this Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, LaCourse Law, PLLC Joel A. LaCourse, OBA #17082 Benjamin J. Oxford, OBA #22259 Zachary M. Keen, OBA #33016 302 E. Reconciliation Way Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Telephone: (918) 744-7100 Facsimile: (918) 477-2299 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff