CJ-2026-1136 - Julio Villasana Castillo v. National Summit Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be honest: most of us only think about our insurance company when we really need them—like when a storm turns our roof into a modern art installation and suddenly we’re collecting rainwater in buckets during dinner. That’s exactly what happened to Julio Villasana Castillo of Tulsa, Oklahoma—except the real disaster didn’t come from the sky. It came from his own insurance company, which allegedly looked at his shredded roof, said “meh,” and walked away. Now, Castillo is suing National Summit Insurance Company for $85,900—$75,900 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages—because, in a twist that feels ripped from a satirical courtroom drama, the company that’s supposed to protect homeowners may have done everything in its power not to.

So who’s Julio Villasana Castillo? Just your average Tulsan trying to live a quiet life under a solid roof. He owns a home at 1131 S 79th E Ave, which, until April 3, 2025, was presumably dry, structurally sound, and free of indoor waterfalls. He had insurance—through National Summit Insurance Company, a foreign insurer operating in Oklahoma—because, like any responsible adult, he didn’t want to go broke every time Mother Nature threw a tantrum. His policy covered wind and hail damage, with a $2,860 deductible and a dwelling limit of $143,000. In other words: he did his part. He paid his premiums. He played by the rules. And then, on that fateful day in April, a brutal wind and hailstorm rolled through Tulsa like an angry ex with a grudge—and turned Castillo’s roof into a sieve.

Water started pouring into his bedroom, dining room, living room, and even his closet. Yes, his closet. You don’t need a structural engineer to tell you that’s a problem. You need a mop, a prayer, and ideally, a very responsive insurance adjuster. Castillo filed a claim, expecting the company he’d been paying for years to step up. Instead, he got a game of bureaucratic whack-a-mole. In May 2025, an adjuster named Kyle Thomas from Associated Adjusters Network showed up, took some photos, and estimated the damage at $16,074.88 in replacement cost and $14,331.45 in actual cash value. Not a fortune, but enough to fix the roof and stop the indoor rainforest from spreading. Except—here’s the kicker—National Summit didn’t pay up. They allegedly refused to cover the full cost of repairs, despite the policy clearly covering wind and hail damage. And that’s when things went full insurance thriller.

Castillo, probably tired of sleeping with a bucket by his bed, called in the cavalry: A-Best Roofing. On July 17, 2025, they inspected the property and delivered the kind of estimate that makes insurance adjusters sweat. Their assessment? The roof needed at least $26,999 in repairs—possibly as much as $33,999, depending on the materials used. That’s more than double what the first adjuster said. And it wasn’t just a number on a page—they backed it up with a detailed comparison estimate, photos, and a full scope of damage. A-Best didn’t just say the roof was bad; they said it was catastrophically bad. And yet, National Summit allegedly ignored it. They didn’t send a second adjuster. They didn’t request more info. They didn’t say, “Huh, maybe we messed up.” They just… did nothing. Or worse—they actively refused to pay, despite having all the evidence they needed to do the right thing.

Which brings us to the courtroom. Castillo, through his attorney Amber Peckio of the AMBER LAW GROUP, is now suing National Summit on three fronts. First: breach of contract—a fancy way of saying, “You took my money for years, promised to cover storm damage, and now you’re ghosting me when it actually happens.” That’s not just bad customer service; it’s a legal violation. Second: breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing—a mouthful, but in plain English: “You didn’t just fail to pay; you screwed me over.” The filing accuses National Summit of relying on an incomplete report, refusing to consider new evidence, failing to investigate properly, and forcing Castillo to spend his own money just to get what the policy already promised. And third: punitive damages—because sometimes, a company behaves so badly that the court says, “Not only do you have to pay what you owe, but we’re going to slap you with extra cash as a punishment.”

Now, let’s talk numbers. Castillo is asking for $75,900 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. Is that a lot? Well, compared to the $16K estimate National Summit was willing to pay, yes—it’s nearly five times more. But here’s the thing: his own roofing contractor said repairs would cost between $27K and $34K. So why is he asking for so much more? Likely because he’s factoring in long-term damage—water intrusion can lead to mold, structural weakening, ruined drywall, ruined furniture, ruined peace of mind. Plus, he’s demanding attorney’s fees and costs, which add up fast when you’re suing a corporation. And the $10,000 in punitive damages? That’s not about fixing the roof—it’s about sending a message: “Stop treating policyholders like walking dollar signs.”

So what’s our take? Look, insurance companies aren’t charities. They’re in business to make money, and they’re always looking for ways to pay out as little as possible. But there’s a line between being cautious and being bad faith. And National Summit may have danced right over it. The most absurd part? That a company whose entire business model is built on trust—“we’ve got your back when disaster strikes”—might have deliberately undervalued damage, ignored expert reports, and forced a homeowner into litigation just to get a roof that doesn’t leak. That’s not business. That’s betrayal.

We’re not saying every insurance claim should be paid in full. But when two independent assessments show significantly higher damage than the insurer’s initial report—and the insurer refuses to budge without even reviewing the new evidence—that’s not skepticism. That’s negligence. Or worse: a pattern. And if the filing is accurate, National Summit didn’t just fail Castillo—they made his life harder, cost him more, and left his home vulnerable for months. That’s not just a breach of contract. That’s a breach of basic decency.

So here’s hoping Julio gets his day in court—and that a jury looks at this case and says, “You know what? Pay the man. Fix the roof. And maybe, just maybe, treat your customers like human beings instead of balance sheet line items.” Because if we can’t count on our insurance when the sky falls, what’s the point of having it at all?

Case Overview

$85,900 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Amber N. Peckio

AMBER LAW GROUP

Relief Sought

$75,900 Monetary

$10,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Julio Villasana Castillo individual
Rep: Amber Peckio of AMBER LAW GROUP

Defendants

National Summit Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its insurance contract by refusing to pay for property damage.
2	Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to pay for property damage and by failing to properly investigate the claim.
3	Punitive Damages	Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for Defendant's alleged bad faith conduct.

Petition Text

1,319 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JULIO VILLASANA CASTILLO, an individual,) Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL SUMMIT INSURANCE COMPANY a foreign company, Defendant. Case No. Judge TRACY L PRIDDY ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Julio Villasana Castillo, by and through his attorney of record, Amber Peckio of AMBER LAW GROUP, and for his cause of action against the Defendant, National Summit Insurance Company, alleges and states as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That the Defendant, National Summit Insurance Company (herein "National Summit"), is a foreign insurance company doing business in the State of Oklahoma. That the incident giving rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, thus making jurisdiction of this Court just and proper. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 3, 2025, the Plaintiff's home located at 1131 S 79th E Ave, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112, suffered extensive wind and hail damage, including substantial roof damage that allowed water to intrude into the interior of the dwelling. 3. The Plaintiff’s home is covered by a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company. That said policy of insurance included coverage for damages caused by wind and hailstorm damage, for which the dwelling limits are $143,000.00, with a $2,860.00 wind and hail deductible, policy number OK00308387-01. Further, that said policy was in effect and covers damages sustained by the Plaintiff’s home on or about April 3, 2025. 4. On or about April 3, 2025, a windstorm and hailstorm struck Tulsa, Oklahoma, causing significant damage to Plaintiff’s roof and permitting water intrusion into multiple rooms of the dwelling, including the bedroom, dining room, living room, and closet. 5. On or about May 23, 2025, Kyle Thomas of Associated Adjusters Network performed an inspection of the Plaintiff’s property and documented wind damage to the roof allowing water intrusion to the interior. Mr. Thomas documented damage to the roofing system, gutters, and caused interior water damage to the ceiling and walls throughout the dwelling. Mr. Thomas’s inspection produced a detailed photo sheet and estimate of damages. 6. The estimate generated following the inspection found a Replacement Cost Value of $16,074.88 for the covered damage, and an Actual Cash Value of $14,331.45. 7. On July 17, 2025, A-Best Roofing located at 1411 E 3rd St, Tulsa, Oklahoma, inspected and documented the hail and wind damage to Plaintiff’s property and produced a comparison estimate. A-Best Roofing’s estimate documented the full scope of damage to the roof and generated a proposal estimating the total cost of repairs to the Plaintiff’s roof at no less than $26,999.00 and up to $33,999.00, depending on the roofing system selected, which dramatically exceeds the prior assessment of the damage by Defendant National Summit Insurance Company. 8. That the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company has breached its contract of insurance and has wholly refused or neglected to pay Plaintiff the full value of his structural and roof damages. Said failure constitutes a breach of contract of said insurance policy, and the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant National Summit Insurance Company for an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for the property damage he sustained while covered by such contract, together with attorney's fees and costs. COUNT II BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 9. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations of Count One, Paragraphs 1 through 8, as if they were fully rewritten and fully set forth herein. 10. In its handling of Plaintiff's claim, and as a matter of standard business practice in handling like claims under the same or similar policies of insurance, National Summit Insurance Company further breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith towards Plaintiff by, among other things, a. failing to make a full assessment of damages; b. relying on a report containing incomplete or inaccurate information; c. failing to properly investigate the claims and/or obtain and consider additional information important to the refusal to replace Plaintiff's roof at full value; d. forcing Plaintiff to incur the expense of replacing the subject roof when National Summit Insurance Company knew or should have known that the information upon which it was relying was inaccurate and/or incomplete; e. not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of Plaintiff’s claim(s) once National Summit Insurance Company was provided additional information; f. forcing Plaintiff to pursue further action in order to secure benefits National Summit Insurance Company knew or should have known are payable; g. failing to properly evaluate any investigation that was performed; and h. failing to reasonably interpret information made available with a view toward affording coverage in favor of the insured. 11. While not necessarily inclusive, any and or all of the described acts or omissions by National Summit Insurance Company constitutes a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and result in a financial benefit to National Summit Insurance Company. 12. In refusing to make the meaningful payment described, the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company breached its obligation to pay the amount due under the policy as stated above within a reasonable amount of time after having received notice of the loss described above. 13. That Defendant National Summit Insurance Company failed to deal fairly with the Plaintiff by refusing to consider the highly detailed report and estimate provided by Joel Pitts of A-Best Roofing, outlining the full scope of damage to Plaintiff’s property, and by improperly relying on a grossly inadequate prior assessment of the covered damage. 14. That National Summit Insurance Company failed to obtain accurate reports to evaluate the Plaintiff’s claim once it knew or should have known that it was relying on inaccurate and/or incomplete reports. 15. As a proximate result of the bad faith of the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company described above, the Plaintiff was forced to commence litigation against his own insurance carrier at a substantial cost to him. Moreover, as a result of the unreasonable refusal to pay policy benefits on the part of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered mental, emotional, and financial distress for which he is entitled to receive compensation in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. 16. The bad faith refusal to pay proper policy benefits on the part of the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company therefore entitles the Plaintiff to request and receive punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. COUNT III PUNITIVE DAMAGES 17. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations of Count One and Two, Paragraphs 1 through 16, as if they were fully rewritten and fully set forth herein. 18. That Defendant's conduct was intentional, reckless, grossly negligent and malicious so as to warrant the award of exemplary or punitive damages. That Plaintiff has been compelled to retain legal counsel, hire construction persons and professional loss adjustors, and file litigation in order to exact fair treatment from Defendant. That Defendant's conduct has resulted in Plaintiff's home remaining in a substandard, vulnerable and completely unrepai red state which impairs the home's overall integrity. The amount sought in damages is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant National Summit Insurance Company Insurance Company for all allowable money damages, for actual damages for the breach of contract action, punitive damages, mental, emotional, and financial distress together with his costs, attorney fees, interest and all other relief allowed by law that this Court deems just and fair. Plaintiff respectfully reserves the right to amend his Petition for the purpose of asserting additional grounds for recovery and damages against Defendant National Summit Insurance Company or other individuals/entities, including any additional and necessary National Summit Insurance Company corporate entity. Respectfully submitted this 12 day of Marchn., 2026. Amber N. Peckio, OBA No. 19908 AMBER LAW GROUP 2727 E. 21st St. | Ste. 505 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114 P: 918.895.7216 F: 918.895.7217 E: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF