CJ-2026-290 - Ira Kusnetz v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: how many of us have looked up at our roof after a hailstorm and thought, “Well, that’s probably fine… until it’s not”? But Ira Kusnetz didn’t wait for the ceiling to cave in. He saw damage, filed a claim, and expected his insurance company—Allstate, one of the biggest names in the business—to do what they’re supposed to do: pay up. Instead, he got a denial, a runaround, and now? A full-blown lawsuit demanding nearly $35,000 in damages, with a jury trial on the horizon. This isn’t just a dispute over shingles—it’s a modern-day David vs. Goliath showdown, with gutters, adjusters, and legal jargon flying like debris in a tornado.

So who’s Ira Kusnetz? Just your average Canadian County homeowner—yes, Canadian County, Oklahoma, not the Great White North—living at 3512 Wayfield Avenue in Oklahoma City. He’s not a roofing expert, not a lawyer, not some insurance fraudster with a ladder and a dream. He’s a guy who paid his premiums on time, trusted the system, and then, when the sky literally fell (or at least pelted his house with hail), he did the responsible thing: he called Allstate. His policy number? 000821263101. His claim? 0790198039. His expectation? That the company would send someone to look at his roof and say, “Yep, that’s hail damage. Here’s a check.” Instead, what he got was a corporate shrug and a denial letter that probably said something like, “We regret to inform you…” while absolutely nothing about the situation was regretted on their end.

The alleged loss happened on April 1, 2025. No, not a prank. Real damage. Real wind. Real hail. Real property loss. Kusnetz says he reported it immediately—like any good policyholder should—and Allstate assigned a claim number, sent an adjuster (maybe), and then… nothing. Or worse: a denial based on what Kusnetz calls “technical, limiting, and restrictive definitions” that aren’t even in the policy. Here’s the kicker: the policy doesn’t define what “accidental direct physical loss” means. It also doesn’t spell out what counts as a roof being “damaged or destroyed.” So according to Oklahoma law—which Kusnetz’s lawyers are very happy to remind us about—those terms should be interpreted in their “ordinary and plain sense.” You know, like how actual humans talk. If your roof has dents, cracks, or missing shingles after a storm, that’s damage. Not “cosmetic wear.” Not “normal aging.” Damage. But Allstate, allegedly, said, “Nah, that’s just life,” and refused to pay.

Now, you might be thinking, “Okay, but insurance companies deny claims all the time. What’s the big deal?” Ah, but here’s where it gets spicy. Kusnetz isn’t just suing for breach of contract—he’s also accusing Allstate of bad faith. And not just a little bad faith. We’re talking full-on, textbook, “how dare you” levels of insurer misconduct. His petition lists ten ways Allstate allegedly acted like the villain in an insurance horror story: misinterpreting the policy, refusing to properly inspect the roof (seriously, did the adjuster even go up there?), calling visible hail damage “wear and tear,” conducting an “outcome-based investigation” (which is lawyer-speak for “they decided to deny it before they even looked”), and forcing Kusnetz to hire a lawyer just to get what he was owed. Oh, and let’s not forget the classic move: using their “unequal wealth and bargaining position” to screw over a regular homeowner. It’s like if a billionaire refused to pay you for mowing their lawn, then laughed when you asked for $50.

So what does Kusnetz want? $34,970.14. That’s the amount he says it’ll cost to repair or replace the damage Allstate won’t cover. Is that a lot? For a roof, maybe not—especially if you’re replacing materials in 2026 when prices have inflation-spiked like everything else. But for a guy who’s already paid years of premiums, it’s not just about the money. It’s about the principle. It’s about the fact that he held up his end of the deal. He didn’t fake the storm. He didn’t cause the damage. He didn’t even wait until his living room looked like a swimming pool. He did everything right—and still got stiffed. And now he wants his day in court, with a jury, thank you very much. He’s also asking for consequential damages, attorney fees, interest, and—because Oklahoma law allows it—punitive damages if the jury agrees Allstate was truly acting like a jerk on purpose.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole thing isn’t that a claim was denied. It’s that Allstate allegedly denied it using definitions that aren’t even in the contract. That’s like a restaurant charging you a “ketchup tax” because their menu “implies” extra condiments cost extra—even though it doesn’t say that anywhere. And the claim that the adjuster didn’t even inspect the roof? If true, that’s not just bad service. That’s negligence with a side of corporate arrogance. Kusnetz isn’t asking for a Tesla. He’s asking for a functional roof. And yet, here we are, in 2026, where a grown man has to sue a multi-billion-dollar insurance company just to get them to do the one thing they exist for: pay claims.

We’re not saying every denied claim is a conspiracy. But when a company writes more than 10% of the homeowners’ policies in a state—yes, Allstate was the second-largest provider in Oklahoma in 2025—they have a responsibility to handle claims fairly. Not with cookie-cutter denials, not with secret definitions, not with adjusters who don’t leave their cars. This case isn’t just about Ira Kusnetz. It’s about every homeowner who’s ever stared at a denial letter and thought, “Wait… that can’t be right.” And if the jury agrees, Allstate might just learn that in Canadian County, you don’t mess with a man’s roof—and you definitely don’t make him sue you for it.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if this goes to trial? We’re bringing popcorn.

Case Overview

$75,900 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Dawn Gores

Red Dirt Legal, PLLC

Relief Sought

$34,970 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Ira Kusnetz individual
Rep: Red Dirt Legal, PLLC - Dawn Gores, OBA No. 21923 and Jeremy E. Melton, OBA No. 22650

Defendants

Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached insurance contract by failing to pay for damages to Plaintiff's property.
2	Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing	Plaintiff alleges Defendant acted in bad faith by mishandling Plaintiff's insurance claim.

Petition Text

1,517 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IRA KUSNETZ, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No.: CJ-2026-290 Judge: KHRISTAN K. STRUBHAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Ira Kusnetz, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and in support of his action against Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” and/or “Allstate”) states and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Canadian County, Oklahoma, and a citizen of the state of Oklahoma. 3. Defendant is a foreign for-profit insurance company that was not incorporated in Oklahoma and does not have its principal place of business in Oklahoma. 4. Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 621, the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner has been appointed as Defendant’s agent for the purpose of service of legal process. 5. The Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner is physically located at, and has the mailing address of, 400 NE 50th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County 73105. 6. Plaintiff's cause of action arose in Canadian County, Oklahoma, and venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Oklahoma has a public policy of protecting the rights and interests of Oklahoma homeowners that is enshrined in the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. 8. Allstate is a nationwide insurance carrier with an extensive practice of offering insurance policies in the State of Oklahoma. 9. In 2025, Allstate wrote the most second-most homeowners “multiple peril” policies in Oklahoma. [OID 2025 Annual Report, pg. 42, https://www.oid.ok.gov/about-oid/annual-reports/ (last accessed March 25, 2025)]. 10. Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to an insurance contract identified by Defendant as Policy No. 000821263101 (the “Contract”). 11. The Contract was drafted by Allstate alone, and the Plaintiff, who is a lay person and had no negotiation power with respect to the Contract, merely signed the same, paid his premiums, and trusted that if and when damage occurred to Plaintiff’s property located at 3512 Wayfield Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73179 (the “Property”), Allstate would honor the Contract and pay under the same. 12. Allstate received consideration from Plaintiff in the form of Plaintiff’s payment of premiums to Allstate. 13. Plaintiff, upon discovery of an accidental direct physical loss sustained by his Property during the time the Contract was in effect, promptly reported that loss to Allstate. 14. Defendant assigned Plaintiff’s report Claim No. 0790198039 (the “Claim”). 15. Defendant assigned April 1, 2025, as the date of loss for the Claim. 16. The Contract does not define "accidental direct physical loss" and, as such, pursuant to black-letter Oklahoma law, that phrase it to be interpreted in its ordinary and plain sense. 17. The Contract does not define how to determine a roof is "damaged or destroyed" and, as such, pursuant to black-letter Oklahoma law, that phrase it to be interpreted in its ordinary and plain sense. 18. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that the phrases "accidental direct physical loss" and "damaged or destroyed" unambiguously include all physically-observable alteration of or damage to his Property, regardless of whether that alteration or damage results in a reduction of function of that Property, caused by wind and/or hail. 19. Allstate utilized technical, limiting and restrictive definitions of "accidental direct physical loss" and/or "damaged or destroyed" that are not included in the Contract and that were not communicated to Plaintiff at any point prior to the submission of his Claim when investigating, adjusting and making determinations concerning Plaintiff's Claim. 20. Plaintiff disputes Allstate's determination of the benefits it owes him under the Contract for his Claim, and further disputes Allstate's unilateral misinterpretation and misapplication of the Contract to the facts of his Claim in a manner that is inconsistent with Oklahoma law. CLAIM I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 21. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that: (a) Allstate breached the Contract from the outset of its investigation of the Claim by failing and refusing to provide the coverage the Contract, on its face and pursuant to Oklahoma law; (b) prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating the covered loss to his Property is covered under the Contract; (c) prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating any of the covered loss to Plaintiff's Property is excluded from coverage; and, (d) Defendant has breached the Contract by failing to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed to him under the Contract necessitated by the covered loss to Plaintiff's Property. 22. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that Allstate, as a result of its breach of the Contract, has waived its right to enforce any provision of the Contract that imposes any duties or obligations on Plaintiff as a precedent for his recovery of benefits under the Contract. 23. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that Allstate has waived its right to rely on any provision of the Contract as a basis for its Claim determination that it did not communicate to Plaintiff in writing prior to the date on which Plaintiff filed suit. CLAIM II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 24. Given the circumstances in the instant case, Allstate acted unreasonably and in bad faith in handling the Claim. 25. Allstate breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the Contract, as a matter of standard business practice, in the following respects: a. From the outset of its investigation of Plaintiff's Claim, interpreting and applying the terms of the Contract to the facts of Plaintiff's Claim in a manner that violates black-letter principles of Oklahoma law Allstate is deemed to know as an insurer authorized to do business in Oklahoma; b. Failing to properly investigate Plaintiff's Claim by disregarding visible damage to the Property that could only have been caused by wind and/or hail, but classifying the same as normal wear and tear, and/or relying upon, in whole or in part, the investigation of one of its adjusters who completely failed to access and inspect the primary basis of Plaintiff's Claim, i.e., his roof; c. Refusing to obtain additional information material to the determination of the Claim; d. Failing to properly evaluate any investigation that was performed; e. Conducting an outcome-based investigation with a pre-determined goal to deny coverage; f. Failing and refusing payment and other policy benefits on behalf of Plaintiff at a time when Allstate knew he was entitled to those benefits; g. Failing and refusing to disclose to Plaintiff and/or making misrepresentations to Plaintiff about facts and coverages that are relevant to the Claim; h. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of Plaintiff's claim once liability had become reasonably clear; i. Forcing Plaintiff to retain counsel in order to secure benefits Defendant knew were payable under the Contract; and j. Using its unequal wealth and bargaining position to affect an economic gain for Allstate by not paying amounts to Plaintiff owed by virtue of the Policy. 26. Defendant Allstate acted with reckless disregard and in bad faith and should be punished for the benefit of society and to make an example to others to deter similar conduct pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1. DEMAND FOR RELIEF 27. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that due to Defendant’s breach of the Contract, he is entitled to recover from Defendant the amount of money that is needed to put him in as good a position as he would have been in had Defendant not breached the Contract, and that Defendant is responsible for compensating Plaintiff for all reasonably foreseeable detriment proximately caused by Defendant’s breach of the Contract. 28. Plaintiff asserts and alleges Defendant has breached the Contract by failing to pay him the amounts needed to repair/replace the covered loss to his Property presently in the amount of $34,970.14, but in a final amount to be proven at the trial of this matter. 29. Plaintiff asserts and alleges his right to update the calculation of contractual damages closer in time to the trial of this matter to reflect any changes in pricing and asserts and alleges that he is entitled to recover the costs of any such changes as consequential damages incurred due to Defendants’ conduct. 30. Plaintiff asserts and alleges Allstate has breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for financial losses and personal injuries caused by Allstate’s bad faith in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, as well as punitive damages in an amount to be decided by a jury. 31. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that in addition to the damages listed above, he is entitled to recover consequential damages. 32. Plaintiff asserts and alleges that in addition to the damages listed above, he is entitled to recover interest, attorney fees, and costs as permitted and/or mandated by Oklahoma law. 33. The amount of damages sought to be recovered by Plaintiff is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Dated: March 25, 2026 Respectfully submitted, RED DIRT LEGAL, PLLC [Signature] Dawn Gores, OBA No. 21923 [email protected] Jeremy E. Melton, OBA No. 22650 [email protected] 10334 Greenbriar Parkway Oklahoma City, OK 73159 Telephone: (405) 527-8001 Facsimile: (405) 527-1539 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF