CJ-2025-00012 - Kelly Armstrong v. Washington National Insurance Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: insurance companies denying claims is about as shocking as a politician missing a deadline. But here’s the twist—Kelly and Todd Armstrong didn’t just get a “sorry, not sorry” letter after Todd suffered a stroke. They got radio silence, a definition of “stroke” that somehow didn’t include an actual stroke, and an agent who sold them a policy that, in hindsight, might as well have been written in invisible ink. Now, they’re suing for $150,000—half in actual damages, half in punitive “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” energy—because when your husband can’t walk straight due to brain damage and the insurance company acts like it never happened? That’s not just bad business. That’s a vibe crime.

Meet Kelly and Todd Armstrong, a married couple from Cotton County, Oklahoma, who believed—naively, perhaps—that when they bought a supplemental health insurance policy from Washington National Insurance Company (WNIC), they were buying peace of mind. Not a get-rich-quick scheme, not a luxury. Just the quiet comfort of knowing that if something catastrophic happened—like, say, a stroke—they wouldn’t be left holding the medical bill like a participation trophy. The policy, sold in person by agent Christopher Stegall, promised up to $10,000 in benefits if either of them suffered a stroke. Sounds modest? Sure. But when you’re talking about out-of-pocket rehab costs, mobility aids, or lost wages, ten grand can mean the difference between recovery and ruin. Stegall didn’t sell it like a niche add-on. He sold it like a safety net—specifically telling Kelly the policy would “immediately pay for expenses” if a stroke occurred. No fine print, no asterisks. Just: You’re covered.

Then, on May 20, 2023, Todd had a stroke. Not a “feeling a little off” day. Not a “maybe I need more coffee” moment. An acute ischemic cerebellar stroke—a fancy way of saying part of his brain didn’t get enough blood, and now he has balance problems. The kind of thing that shows up on scans, in doctor’s notes, and in the way you suddenly can’t trust your own legs. Kelly did everything right. She filed the claim (Claim No. 230000014485—yes, we’re judging WNIC for making us type that). She attached documentation from Dr. Preston Waters, Todd’s physician, who very clearly stated: Yes, this was a stroke. It lasted more than 24 hours. It caused neurological deficiency. All boxes checked. All definitions met. The policy even defined a stroke in a way that literally described Todd’s condition. But WNIC said no. On June 17, 2023, they denied the claim, claiming—get this—that a stroke had not occurred. Not “we need more info.” Not “our doctor disagrees.” Just a flat, cold, medical-reality-denying nope.

Kelly appealed. On June 23, she sent more proof—more medical records, more doctor letters, the whole sad paper trail of a life interrupted by brain damage. WNIC? Crickets. No response. No explanation. No engagement. Radio silence for months. So in November 2024—over a year after Todd’s stroke, after countless doctor visits, after the emotional toll of fighting for basic benefits—Kelly’s lawyers sent a demand letter. Another ghosting. At this point, it’s not just a denial. It’s a pattern. It’s a performance. It’s like WNIC watched a documentary about how not to handle claims and said, “Perfect. That’s our blueprint.”

Now, why are they in court? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a very angry jury. First claim: Breach of Contract. Simple idea—when you sign an insurance policy, it’s a deal. You pay premiums, they pay benefits if the bad thing happens. The bad thing happened. They didn’t pay. That’s breach. Not rocket science. Second claim: Bad Faith. This is where it gets spicy. Insurance companies aren’t just supposed to follow the contract—they’re supposed to act like decent human beings while doing it. Oklahoma law says they can’t dodge claims, ignore evidence, or make you sue just to get what’s owed. WNIC allegedly did all three. They denied without explaining why. They ignored new medical proof. They forced the Armstrongs to hire lawyers. That’s not just stingy—it’s potentially illegal under Oklahoma’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. And third claim: Constructive Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation. Fancy words for: the guy who sold us this policy lied. Christopher Stegall allegedly told Kelly the policy would pay immediately for stroke expenses, with no limitations. But the actual policy? It had fine print. It had definitions. It had exclusions. And Stegall, as the agent, allegedly knew that—but didn’t say a word. He sold a dream. They bought a policy. The two were not the same.

So what do the Armstrongs want? $150,000. Split right down the middle—$75k in actual damages (for the emotional distress, legal fees, and the sheer indignity of being gaslit by an insurance company while recovering from a stroke), and another $75k in punitive damages—which aren’t about compensation. They’re about punishment. “Hey, WNIC, you didn’t just mess up. You acted like a cartoon villain. Now pay the price.” Is $150,000 a lot? For a $10,000 policy? On paper, yes. But context matters. This isn’t just about the money they were owed. It’s about the year-long runaround, the emotional toll, the fact that Todd is still dealing with balance issues, and the message this sends: that insurance companies can sell policies with one hand and vanish with the other. If every denied claim came with zero consequences, what’s stopping them from doing it again? And again? And again?

Here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t even the denial. It’s the audacity of the silence. Most insurance horror stories involve back-and-forth—denials, appeals, counter-denials. But WNIC didn’t just say no. They said nothing. No reasoning. No engagement. Just… nothing. It’s the corporate equivalent of putting on headphones and staring at the wall while your house burns down. And let’s talk about Christopher Stegall—the agent who allegedly sold a policy that doesn’t match reality. If true, that’s not just bad salesmanship. That’s predatory. He didn’t just oversell. He misrepresented. And in doing so, he turned a safety net into a trap. We’re not saying every insurance agent is a villain. But when the product you sell literally fails the moment it’s needed, and the company backs you up by ghosting the victims? That’s not business. That’s betrayal.

We’re rooting for the Armstrongs. Not because every insurance claim should be paid. But because when a stroke is documented by doctors, defined correctly in the policy, and still gets denied without explanation—something’s broken. And if courts don’t hold companies like WNIC accountable, then what’s the point of insurance at all? It’s not protection. It’s performance art. And in Cotton County, Oklahoma, Kelly and Todd Armstrong are demanding a refund on the illusion.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Cotton County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

J. Revell Parrish

Glass & Tabor, LLP

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Kelly Armstrong individual
Rep: J. Revell Parrish
Todd Armstrong individual
Rep: J. Revell Parrish

Defendants

Washington National Insurance Company business
Christopher Stegall individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Insurance company failed to pay benefits after plaintiff suffered a stroke
2	Bad Faith	Insurance company engaged in unfair claims settlement practices
3	Constructive Fraud and Negligence Misrepresentation	Insurance agent misrepresented policy terms and sold illusory coverage

Petition Text

1,485 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COTTON COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA KELLY ARMSTRONG and TODD ARMSTRONG, Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CHRISTOPHER STEGALL, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2025-12 PETITION Plaintiffs Kelly and Todd Armstrong ("Plaintiffs"), for their cause of action against Defendants Washington National Insurance Company ("WNIC") and Christopher Stegall ("Stegall") (collectively, "Defendants"), state as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiffs Kelly and Todd Armstrong are citizens of the State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Washington National Insurance Company is a foreign insurance company licensed and engaged in the business of insurance in the State of Oklahoma. 3. Defendant Christopher Stegall is an agent of Washington National Insurance Company and a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 4. The substantial events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred in Cotton County, Oklahoma. 5. Venue is proper under 12 O.S. § 137. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. On or about May 20, 2023, Mr. Armstrong suffered a stroke. 7. Ms. Armstrong properly and timely submitted a claim (Claim No. 230000014485) to WNIC regarding her husband’s stroke. 8. At the time of Mr. Armstrong’s stroke, Plaintiffs had in effect an insurance policy with WNIC, Policy No. WS00480889 (“Policy”). 9. The Policy provided coverage of up to $10,000 in the event of a stroke. 10. The Policy was sold to Ms. Armstrong by agent Stegall who visited Ms. Armstrong at her place of business to solicit and promote the sale of insurance policies. Plaintiffs were both covered under the Policy. 11. On or about June 17, 2023, WNIC denied Plaintiffs’ claim stating, in its opinion, a stroke had not occurred. 12. On or about June 23, 2023, Plaintiffs appealed WNIC’s denial attaching signed documentation from Mr. Armstrong’s physician, Dr. Preston Waters, who found that Mr. Armstrong suffered an acute ischemic cerebellar stroke which left him with balance problems. WNIC failed to respond. 13. Following this failure to respond, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a demand letter on or about November 5, 2024. WNIC also failed to respond to this communication. 14. Under the Policy, a stroke is defined as a cerebrovascular accident lasting more than 24 hours that causes neurological deficiency. Further, a cerebrovascular accident is defined, under the Policy, as a sudden, unexpected interference in brain function resulting from an insufficient supply of blood to part of the brain. 15. The documentation provided by Plaintiffs, including his physician’s letter and medical records, satisfied such definitions. 16. In denying Plaintiffs’ claim, WNIC failed to disclose, as it is required to do, any facts or policy language it relied upon with respect to its denial. WNIC further failed to disclose its reasoning in denying Plaintiffs’ appeal. 17. Given that Mr. Armstrong’s health event met the definition of a stroke under the Policy, the benefits owed to Plaintiffs should have been paid by WNIC. 18. Stegall represented to Ms. Armstrong during the sale of the Policy that the Policy being sold to Plaintiffs was one in which benefits would be provided to Plaintiffs in the event of a stroke, without limitation. Stegall represented the policy would immediately pay for expenses incurred as a result of a stroke. However, Stegall knew, but failed to disclose to Ms. Armstrong that the policy contained more limitations than what he represented. Stegall misrepresented how the policy would pay in the event of a claim. Stegall misrepresented how the policy defined stroke and knew there were more limitations to coverage and benefits than what he disclosed. 19. Stegall’s representations turned out not to be true and Plaintiffs were damaged as they had agreed to purchase the policy as it was represented to them by Stegall. Plaintiffs paid a premium for the subject policy and were induced to purchase the same based upon their reliance on Stegall’s representations. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 20. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every preceding paragraph as if set forth fully herein. 21. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance with WNIC to provide coverage in the event of a stroke, which was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 22. Plaintiffs complied with the terms and conditions of the Policy in all material ways. 23. WNIC, however, breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs by failing to pay the benefits to which they are entitled under the terms and conditions of the Policy. 24. As a result of WNIC’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. COUNT II: BAD FAITH 25. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every preceding paragraph as if set forth full herein. 26. WNIC owed a duty to Plaintiffs to deal fairly and in good faith. 27. WNIC breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in the following acts and omissions: a. Failing to pay the full and fair amount of the benefits owed to Plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; b. Purposefully, wrongfully, and repeatedly withholding pertinent benefits, due to Plaintiffs under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§ 1250.1-1250.16; c. Failing to fairly reevaluate Plaintiffs’ claim when new information was provided; d. Failing to set forth the facts it relied upon in denying Plaintiffs’ claim and concealing the same; e. Failing to perform a fair and objective investigation of Plaintiffs’ claim; f. Forcing Plaintiffs to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits to which they were entitled under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract; g. Knowingly and intentionally failing to engage in proper claims handling practices and failing to timely compensate its insureds losses covered under its insurance Policy; h. Engaging in outcome-oriented investigation and claim handling practices; i. Engaging in these improper claim practices knowing that its insureds would suffer financial harm; and j. Putting its interest in maximizing financial gains first and limiting disbursements above the interests of Plaintiffs. 28. As a consequence of WNIC’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to them, anger, stress, worry, emotional suffering, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. 29. The conduct of WNIC was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of others. 30. The actions of WNIC during the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim demonstrate it intentionally, and with malice, breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith. The actions of WNIC were intentional, malicious and consistent with an overall collective corporate goal of increasing profits through the systematic reduction or avoidance of claims. Plaintiffs therefore seek punitive damages in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). COUNT III: CONSTRUTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE MISREPRESENTATION 31. Plaintiffs fully incorporate into this paragraph each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition as if each were fully iterated verbatim herein. 32. Stegall had a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and skill in obtaining and accurately notifying Plaintiffs of the nature and character of the insurance procured. Stegall breached this duty by misrepresenting and/or concealing pertinent material facts to Plaintiffs as follows: a. Procuring and selling illusory insurance coverage to Plaintiffs; b. Misrepresenting that coverage and benefits that would be provided to Plaintiffs under the Policy in the event of a stroke; and c. Misrepresenting the terms of the subject policy and failing to speak truthfully with respect to how the policy defined stroke in comparison to how he represented the coverages when selling the Policy. 33. As a result of Stegall’s breach of duty, both Defendants gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiffs to their prejudice. Stegall misrepresented the nature and character of the policy procured, and maintained for Plaintiffs; Stegall misrepresented the Policy as one in which would provide coverage and immediate benefits to Plaintiffs in the event that either suffered a stroke. 34. Stegall’s misrepresentations constitute constructive fraud. 35. Plaintiffs were induced to accept and purchase the Policy as a result of Stegall’s misrepresentations and constructive fraud. 36. As a result of Stegall’s constructive fraud and misrepresentation, Plaintiffs have sustained financial loss and have been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interests. 37. Stegall’s conduct was intentional, willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs’, and/or was grossly negligent, and is sufficiently egregious in nature to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs Kelly and Todd Armstrong pray for judgment against Defendant Washington National Insurance Company and Defendant Christopher Stegall in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), together with costs, interest, reasonable attorney fees, and other relief that this Court deems just, equitable, and proper. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ J. Revell Parrish, OBA #30205 GLASS & TABOR, LLP 1601 36th Ave. NW Norman, OK 73072 Telephone: (405) 360-9700 Facsimile: (405) 360-7902 Email: [email protected] [email protected] – and – Brad Burgess, OBA #10226 Colby A. Stephenson, OBA #34799 BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Telephone: (580) 355-8920 Facsimile: (580) 355-8999 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED