CJ-2026-783 - Matthew Barrett v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: insurance companies don’t usually make headlines for being too generous. But when a guy hires his own roofer, a third-party adjuster basically says “yep, this roof is toast,” and the insurance company still sends a check for $87.10—and then ghosts him? That’s not just stingy. That’s the kind of energy that gets you sued in front of a jury, and that’s exactly what’s going down in Tulsa County, where Matthew Barrett is taking on the Goliath of suburban insurance policies—State Farm—over what started as a hailstorm and turned into a full-blown David vs. Big Red Tractor battle.

Matthew Barrett is just a regular homeowner in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma—136 W. Jefferson Street, to be exact. He pays his premiums like clockwork, probably has a lawn that looks suspiciously well-manicured in the summer, and, like most of us, assumed that when disaster struck, his insurance would have his back. Enter May 21, 2024: a bona fide wind and hailstorm rolls through, the kind that sounds like God is playing marbles with the roof. Shingles get tossed, vents go flying, and somewhere, a gutter says its last goodbye. Barrett, doing everything by the book, calls State Farm. They acknowledge the claim, assign it a number (36-73T3-61G—because nothing says drama like an alphanumeric code), and promise to handle it. So far, so normal. This is how insurance is supposed to work. But then… things get weird. Very weird.

State Farm sends an adjuster out in October 2024—five months after the storm, which already feels like the insurance version of showing up to a birthday party after the cake has been thrown out. The inspection? Let’s just say it wasn’t exactly CSI: Broken Arrow. Their conclusion? Two turbine vents, one rain cap, a few shingles, and a drywall patch in the laundry room. That’s it. No full roof replacement. No “hey, this whole thing is compromised.” Just a Band-Aid on a broken femur. Barrett, not exactly thrilled, hires his own contractor—because apparently in Oklahoma, when your roof looks like a jigsaw puzzle missing half the pieces, you don’t just hope for the best. The contractor takes one look and says, “Buddy, you need a whole new roof.” Full replacement. Not a suggestion. A necessity.

So Barrett goes back to State Farm. They send a second adjuster—a third-party one this time, which sounds fancy but turns out to be just another guy with a clipboard and a questionable opinion. But here’s the kicker: this guy actually agrees with the contractor. Word-for-word, according to the filing, he says something along the lines of, “I feel good about it, seems like there’s enough damage here to warrant a total roof replacement.” That’s not “maybe.” That’s not “possibly.” That’s an endorsement. It’s the insurance equivalent of a standing ovation. And yet—and yet—State Farm comes back with a second estimate that’s basically the same as the first. This time, they throw in a few more line items—ten shingles instead of three, a turtle vent (which sounds like something from a children’s cartoon), a pipe jack boot (no, we don’t know what that is either), and thirty feet of gutter. The grand total? A net payment of $87.10. Let that sink in. Eighty-seven dollars and ten cents for a storm-damaged roof that two separate professionals said needed to be completely replaced. And get this—Barrett still hasn’t received that check. It’s like they sent a IOU written on a napkin and then lost the napkin.

When Barrett asked why the adjuster contradicted his own third-party guy, the State Farm rep allegedly said, “a lot of roofers are liars.” Oh, okay. Sure. And also, apparently, so are third-party adjusters, because that guy also said the roof needed replacing. But nope. State Farm dug in. Barrett asked for the adjuster’s report. Denied. Asked for a formal denial letter in writing. Also denied. Radio silence. Crickets. The insurance equivalent of “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.” So in January 2026—nearly two years after the storm, and after months of being stonewalled—Barrett files a proof of loss based on his contractor’s estimate and officially says, “You know what? I’m done. I’m getting a lawyer.” And that’s when Ashley Leavitt from Holbrook Leavitt & Associates steps in, boots on the ground, ready to go full Legal Avengers on State Farm.

Now, what’s Barrett actually suing for? Two big things. First: breach of contract. Translation: “You took my money every month. You promised to cover storm damage. The storm came. The damage is real. Pay up.” Second: bad faith—which, in insurance terms, is the nuclear option. It means the company didn’t just make a mistake; they intentionally underpaid, delayed, and failed to investigate because it saved them money. It’s not just negligence. It’s corporate cynicism with a side of red tape. And Barrett isn’t just asking for the cost of a new roof—he’s asking for $11,775 in actual damages (which lines up with typical roof replacement costs in the area), plus all the other stuff that comes with being gaslit by your insurer: emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, and yes—punitive damages, because sometimes you sue not just to get paid, but to make a point.

Is $74,624 a lot? In the grand scheme of lawsuits, it’s chump change for a company like State Farm, which had $90 billion in revenue last year. But for Matthew Barrett, it’s not about the money—it’s about the principle. It’s about the fact that he did everything right, and the system still tried to screw him over with a check for less than the cost of a decent TV. He wants his roof. He wants his dignity. And he wants a jury to look State Farm in the eye and say, “No. This is not how you treat people.”

Our take? Look, we’ve all had insurance horror stories. The denied claims, the endless hold music, the adjusters who’ve clearly never seen a roof in their lives. But this case? This is next-level. The most absurd part isn’t even the $87.10 check—it’s the audacity. The third-party adjuster basically gives the green light for a full roof replacement, and State Farm acts like they didn’t hear him. They call roofers liars while ignoring their own contractor’s assessment. They refuse to provide documentation, refuse to deny the claim on paper, and then just… vanish. It’s not just bad customer service. It’s a masterclass in how not to handle a claim. And honestly? We’re rooting for Matthew Barrett. Not because he’s perfect—he waited months to file the proof of loss, and the policy has a one-year lawsuit clause, though he’s arguing it didn’t start until he realized the breach—but because he’s standing up for every homeowner who’s ever been told “your damage isn’t that bad” by someone who spent 12 minutes on their roof with a clipboard. This isn’t just a roof. It’s a symbol. And if justice has a shingle, it better be nailed down tight.

Case Overview

$74,624 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ashley Leavitt

HOLBROOK LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Relief Sought

$11,775 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Matthew Barrett individual
Rep: Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818

Defendants

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached their insurance contract by underpaying for storm damages
2	Bad Faith	Plaintiff alleges Defendant acted in bad faith by delaying and underpaying for storm damages

Petition Text

1,364 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MATTHEW BARRETT, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. CASE NO.: CJ-2026-00783 JUDGE KELLY GREENOUGH ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Matthew Barrett, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), and for his causes of action against Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" and/or "State Farm") and state and allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Matthew Barrett, now, and at all times relevant hereto, was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma and owned real property in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, is a foreign corporation licensed in Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY 3. This action is brought before this Court for the reason that it may exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the Constitution for the United States. 12 O.S. § 2004(F). 4. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133, venue is proper in this Court as the acts complained of herein occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 5. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004(F), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. At all times material hereto, in consideration for premiums paid by Plaintiff, there was in full force and effect a policy of insurance issued by State Farm to Plaintiff, bearing the policy number 36-CBS0-466 (hereinafter referred to as the “Policy”). 7. Under the terms of the Policy, Defendant agreed to insure Plaintiff against certain losses to Plaintiff’s property located at 136 W. Jefferson Street, Broken Arrow, OK 74011-5029, (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”). 8. On or about May 21, 2024, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect, Plaintiff’s Property was damaged as a result of a known wind/hailstorm. 9. The Policy insured the Property against the type of loss and damage suffered. 10. Plaintiff reported the loss to Defendant; Defendant acknowledged the same and assigned claim number 36-73T3-61G to this loss (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim”). All other conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to coverage and benefits under the Policy have been satisfied. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract) 11. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 12. The Policy constitutes a valid and binding contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. 13. Plaintiff timely paid Defendant the owed Policy premiums. 14. In exchange for the Policy provisions, State Farm agreed to provide Plaintiff insurance coverage to Plaintiff’s Property. 15. On or about May 21, 2024, when the above-referenced insurance policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid, Plaintiff suffered a covered loss: storm damage. 16. Plaintiff has fully performed under the Policy and has demanded that Defendant perform; however, Defendant has refused to perform and has materially breached the Policy. 17. The acts and omissions of State Farm, in the handling of Plaintiff’s claim, were unreasonable and resulted in Plaintiff being paid less than what they were owed under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the Defendant. The acts and omissions of the Defendant in the investigation, evaluation, delay, and payment of Plaintiff’s claim were unreasonable and constitute a breach of contract for which contractual damages are hereby sought. 18. Plaintiff remains damaged in an amount not less than $11,775.00 for the actual damages to his dwelling caused by the storm. 19. Plaintiff has been forced to expend money for court costs and litigation for which he should be compensated. 20. While the Policy contains a one year “Suit Against Us” provision, Plaintiff did not report his claim until October of 2024 and was unrepresented on May 21, 2025. Further, Defendant continued to negotiate the Claim with Plaintiff by increasing the amount of estimate on May 6, 2025, and promising an additional payment which never came, as well as refusing to provide a denial letter. By January of 2026, Plaintiff gave up on State Farm doing the right thing and hired an attorney. Therefore, pursuant to 36 O.S. § 1250.7(E), Plaintiff is timely bringing this suit as the breach was not known until January of 2026 at the earliest. 21. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2008(A)(2) and the above facts and circumstances, Plaintiff is entitled to relief under Oklahoma statutory and common law. The total amount demanded by Plaintiff is less than $75,000.00. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bad Faith) 22. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 23. Plaintiff timely filed a claim with State Farm. 24. State Farm sent an adjuster to inspect the Property on or about October 7, 2024. 25. Based on the inadequate inspection, State Farm wrote an estimate for two turbine vents, one rain cap, three individual shingles, and one drywall patch in the laundry room. 26. Unsatisfied with State Farm’s estimate, Plaintiff hired their own contractor to inspect the roof who determined the entire roof needed to be replaced. 27. State Farm sent a third-party adjuster out for a second inspection of the Property who told Plaintiff and his contractors something to the effect of “I feel good about it, seems like there is enough damage here to warrant a total roof replacement”. 28. State Farm then created a second estimate for two turbine vents, one rain cap, ten individual shingles, one turtle vent, one pipe jack boot, one linear foot of hip/ridge metal, thirty linear feet of gutter/downspout, and the one drywall patch in the laundry room, which resulted in a net payment of $87.10. This payment has yet to be received. 29. Plaintiff asked State Farm’s desk adjuster why his roofer and the third-party adjuster said he needed a roof replacement, but he said he didn’t and State Farm’s adjuster responded “a lot of roofers are liars.” 30. Plaintiff requested to see the third-party adjuster’s report and the State Farm adjuster refused. Plaintiff also requested the denial in writing and the State Farm adjuster refused. 31. On January 21, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a proof of loss pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629 based on his contractor’s estimate. 32. Defendant refused to acknowledge the covered loss and refused to pay Plaintiff the full amount of the covered loss owed under the Policy. 33. The acts and omissions of Defendant were in direct breach of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured, Plaintiff, and done for Defendant’s own financial benefit. 34. Defendant intentionally underpaid, delayed, and failed to investigate Plaintiff’s claim. The conduct of the Defendant, in the lack of investigation, evaluation, and payment of Plaintiff’s claim was unreasonable, outside of insurance industry standards, and constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing resulting in the wrongful and bad faith denial of Plaintiff’s claim for which extra-contractual damages are hereby sought. DAMAGES 35. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 36. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff to suffer mental pain, mental anguish and suffering, anxiety, embarrassment, and loss of reputation in an amount to be determined. 37. Defendant’s conduct with respect to Plaintiff’s Claim constitutes a bad faith breach of contract, for which punitive damages should be awarded pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1 due to the wrongful, willful, and intentional conduct of the Defendant which was in reckless disregard of the rights of its insureds, Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs move for a finding by the Court that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company breached its contractual duty to pay for storm damages under the valid Policy; that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing; that Plaintiffs should be awarded a sum not less than $11,775.00 in actual damages; a sum for an amount less than $75,000.00 for consequential damages as a result of Defendant’s breaches; sum for an amount less than $75,000.00 for punitive damages; that an award of attorney fees, costs of litigation and interest is proper pursuant to 36 O.S. § 3629, 12 O.S. §§ 936, 940 & 942, and Oklahoma common law; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable under the circumstances, all damages combined totaling less than $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully Submitted, Ashley Leavitt, OBA #32818 HOLBROOK LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 4815 S. Harvard Ave., Ste 285 Tulsa, OK 74135 P: (918) 373-9394 F: (918) 539-0269 E: [email protected] Counsel for the Plaintiffs