John Lovelady v. Trumbull Insurance Company

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA (1) JOHN LOVELADY, Plaintiff, v. (1) TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, (2) THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, (3) OKLAHOMA HI-TECH, INC. d/b/a SERVICEMASTER RESTORATION BY RSI, a domestic corporation, Defendants. PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, John Lovelady, and for his causes of action against Defendants Trumbull Insurance Company, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., d/b/a The Hartford, and Oklahoma Hi-Tech, Inc. d/b/a ServiceMaster Restoration by RSI, and, hereby states as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Plaintiff John Lovelady is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma and is the owner of, and has an insurance interest in, the property located at 11904 NS 353 Road, located in Earlsboro, Oklahoma (hereinafter “Insured Property”). 2. The Defendant, Trumbull Insurance Company (hereinafter “Trumbull”), is a foreign corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut. Trumbull is an insurance company registered to engage in the business of insurance in the State of Oklahoma. Trumbull is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., a publicly traded corporation that has no parent company. 3. The Defendant, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Hartford”), is a foreign corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut. 4. The Defendant, Oklahoma Hi-Tech, Inc. (hereinafter “ServiceMaster”), is an Oklahoma Corporation conducting business as ServiceMaster Restoration by RSI. 5. Plaintiff entered into a contract for insurance with Trumbull/Hartford to provide insurance coverage for the Insured Property. 6. Trumbull/Hartford issued Plaintiff a policy of insurance bearing Policy Number 55RBF578538 (hereinafter, the “Policy) with effective dates from June 22, 2024 through June 22, 2025 (hereinafter, the “Policy Period”). 7. Trumbull/Hartford represented to Plaintiff that it would comply with the terms of the Policy and conduct itself in accordance with Oklahoma law, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to first-party insureds. 8. On or about February 23, 2025, the Insured Property suffered a covered loss under the Policy when a water line running to the home’s refrigerator froze, causing the line to rupture, and water to intrude the home. Prior to the loss, Plaintiff’s daughter, Sheryl Lovelady, had taken all reasonable and appropriate care to prepare the home for cold weather and to maintain heat in the home. For example, the thermostat for the home was set to a temperature of 70+ degrees. 9. Prior to the loss, Plaintiff, an elderly disabled veteran, had undergone a medical procedure and was recovering at the home of his other daughter, Lori Patterson. 10. On February 23, 2025, Sheryl Lovelady returned to the Insured Property and discovered the water line rupture and extensive damage throughout the home. 11. Given his condition, Plaintiff executed a Durable Power of Attorney authorizing Ms. Lovelady to act on his behalf regarding the insurance claim and other matters. 12. After discovery of the loss, Plaintiff took all reasonable and necessary actions to mitigate damage to the Insured Property including having the water shut off. 13. Plaintiff provided timely and appropriate notice of the loss to Trumbull/Hartford on February 23, 2025. 14. Trumbull/Hartford confirmed that the loss was a covered cause of loss under the terms and conditions of the Policy. 15. Trumbull/Hartford assigned event number PP0020854169 and claim numbers Y4R DP 11130 and Y4R DP 11189 to the covered loss. 16. Within a few days, Trumbull/Hartford coordinated with ServiceMaster to assess the loss and begin remediation services. ServiceMaster set up multiple air blowers in the Insured Property to help dry it out. However, this equipment was removed after just a few days of operation due to multiple other water loss claims in the area. 17. Quite some time later, ServiceMaster removed and disposed of the kitchen cabinets, all of the engineered hardwood flooring, and some but not all of the home’s baseboard trim. ServiceMaster also removed 2-foot-high sections of drywall within the Insured Property’s kitchen, but only on two walls. No other drywall within the Insured Property was removed. 18. No additional mitigation / remediation measures were taken by ServiceMaster and/or arranged by Trumbull/Hartford. 19. Ms. Lovelady continued to monitor the status of the home and, in the weeks following the removal of ServiceMaster’s equipment, began noticing a musty smell she believed was indicative of mold or other biocontamination related to the water loss. 20. Ms. Lovelady discussed her concerns with representatives of ServiceMaster and was informed that an air quality test would need to be performed to determine whether the home contained mold or other biocontamination related to the loss and what further actions needed to be taken. 21. On or about April 23, 2025, Ms. Lovelady engaged Allergy Control, LLC, to perform an air quality test within the home. 22. On or about April 24, 2025, Allergy Control, LLC, produced a Mold Investigation Report that indicated “[m]old colonies detected in all areas tested” and “recommend[ed] professional remediation.” The report noted the presence of aspergillus / penicillium mold of 5,760 spores per cubic meter, a result described as “very high”. 23. Ms. Lovelady immediately forwarded the results of testing to Trumbull/Hartford. 24. On or about May 1, 2025, Ms. Lovelady sought guidance from Trumbull/Hartford on how to proceed with the remediation within the Insured Property. She was informed that ServiceMaster had provided paperwork and the same had been approved for payment by Trumbull/Hartford. 25. Trumbull/Hartford also suggested that Ms. Lovelady engage Jenkins Restoration to prepare a bid for repairs to the home; however, Trumbull/Hartford acknowledged that doing so would be futile before necessary demolition and remediation had been completed. Trumbull/Hartford also stated that its mitigation team was reviewing the results of the air quality testing done by Allergy Control, LLC. 26. The following day, Ms. Lovelady drove to the Insured Property. She discovered that no further work had been performed and that ServiceMaster had failed to secure the home and personal property stored in a storage cube on the property. She notified Trumbull/Hartford of the same via email on May 5, 2025. 27. On or about May 5, 2025, Hartford suggested that the claim move forward without the services of ServiceMaster and asked whether Ms. Lovelady wished to procced with Jenkins Restoration for repair of the Insured Property. Ms. Lovelady assented to the use of Jenkins Restoration but again inquired about remediation of the known biocontamination within the Insured Property. After these discussions, Trumbull/Hartford contacted Jenkins Restoration and asked they engage Ms. Lovelady for the purposes of preparing a repair bid for the Insured Property. 28. On or about May 6, 2025, Ms. Lovelady was contacted by Jenkins Restoration and informed that remediation was complete. She reached out to Trumbull/Hartford to clarify various claim-related issues including whether the recommendations from Allergy Control relative to the mold/biocontamination would be performed and whether she would have any role in assisting in the restoration process. In response Trumbull/Hartford claimed that ServiceMaster had “completed mitigation and submitted final billing” and that “[i]f we run air scrubbers and clean the ducts, all we’ll really need to worry about is a final clean”. 29. At the time of Trumbull/Hartford’s response, the recommendations made by Allergy Control had not been followed by ServiceMaster, Jenkins, or Trumbull/Hartford. 30. Thereafter, Ms. Lovelady communicated with Jenkins Restoration and was informed that it could complete mold/biocontamination remediation at the Insured Property with an approved scope of work specifying the location of mold spores/biocontamination. 31. Ms. Lovelady requested that Allergy Control, LLC, outline the appropriate scope of work to perform the necessary mold/biocontamination remediation and received the same on May 20, 2025. The report recommended: (1) the use of air scrubbers during the demolition and repair of the Insured Property; (2) the removal of drywall at least 1-foot past signs of mold growth; (3) the cleaning and antimicrobial treatment of the homes HVAC ductwork; and (4) cleaning of all hard surfaces within the Insured Property. 32. Ms. Lovelady forwarded the above scope of work and updated report to Trumbull/Hartford the following day. To this date, the remediation recommendations suggested by Allergy Control have not been approved by Trumbull/Hartford. 33. Having received no response from Trumbull/Hartford, Ms. Lovelady made contact again on May 29, 2025, seeking guidance on next steps. She was informed that Jenkins Restoration had provided its repair bid and that Trumbull/Hartford was reviewing the same. In response, Ms. Lovelady inquired whether Jenkins Restoration would be completing the necessary mold/biocontamination remediation. 34. On or about June 24, 2025, Ms. Lovelady requested a status update from Trumbull/Hartford. Trumbull/Hartford did not respond. 35. On or about July 8, 2025, Ms. Lovelady received an email communication from Jenkins Restoration that included an “approved estimate”. A copy of the same estimate was provided to Ms. Lovelady by Trumbull/Hartford on July 11, 2025. 36. The estimate approved by Trumbull/Hartford did not include amounts for the mold/biocontamination remediation measures recommended by Allergy Control and did not fully encompass the extent of the damage or repairs needed to return the home to its pre-loss condition. 37. In response, on July 11, 2025, Ms. Lovelady again provided Trumbull/Hartford a copy of the test results and scope of work from Allergy Control. Trumbull/Hartford again acknowledged receipt of the same and again indicated the documents would be forwarded to Trumbull/Hartford’s mitigation team “to see the best next steps”; the adjuster told Ms. Lovelady, “Once I hear back, I will reach out to you.” 38. Several weeks later, Ms. Lovelady called and left a voicemail at Trumbull/Hartford to check the claim’s status. She did not receive a response. 39. On August 25, 2025, Ms. Lovelady emailed Trumbull/Hartford seeking a status update. 40. The following day, Ms. Lovelady received an email communication from a Trumbull/Hartford claim supervisor indicating the claim was pending further review and that it should be resolved within days. Thereafter, neither Plaintiff nor Ms. Lovelady received any further claim-related communications from Trumbull/Hartford. 41. As of the date of this filing, the Insured Property has not been fully remediated. 42. As of the date of this filing, the Insured Property has not been repaired and has not been placed in its pre-loss condition. 43. As of the date of this filing, Trumbull/Hartford have not authorized or issued claim payments for the mold/biocontamination remediation of the Insured Property. 44. As of the date of this filing, Trumbull/Hartford have not authorized or issued claim payments sufficient to return the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. 45. During its handling of the claim, Trumbull/Hartford never dispatched a licensed claims adjuster to assess the loss. 46. Believing Trumbull/Hartford were not acting in Plaintiff's best interests, had performed an inadequate investigation and were not properly assessing the full scope and extent of the damages suffered by the water loss, Plaintiff's home was inspected by Kelly Parker, P.E., with Smart House Consultants, Lance Pound with BC-EGA, Inc., and Mac McDaniel, Biocontamination Inspector. 47. Mr. Parker has detailed his observations from the onsite inspections, provided numerous opinions relative to the failures of Trumbull/Hartford and ServiceMaster, and provided a scope of work needed to properly restore Plaintiff's home from the water loss and mold/biocontamination. 48. Mr. Parker's conclusions indicate as follows: a. The repair estimate prepared by Jenkins Restoration and approved by Trumbull/Hartford does not address all necessary repairs resulting from the water loss; b. ServiceMaster failed to properly and sufficiently remediate the damage which led to further moisture and biocontamination damage to the Insured Property; c. The mold test results and remediation recommendations made by Allergy Control, LLC, are no longer adequate to address the extent of the mold/biocontamination issues in the Insured Property; d. The Insured Property is biocontaminated as evidenced by tape lift samples taken from behind baseboards, on exterior sheathing/water resistive barrier, and in the HVAC unit and ductwork; e. The cost to properly remediate the Insured Property and place it in its pre-loss condition is estimated at $153,143.07. 49. Under the terms of the Policy, Trumbull/Hartford were obligated to pay homeowner's insurance benefits to Plaintiff in the approximate of $153,143.07, less applicable deductibles. To date, however, Trumbull/Hartford has only offered to pay property/dwelling benefits in the amount of $34,580.25. 50. As of the instant filing, no further payments have been offered or issued by Trumbull/Hartford to Plaintiff relative to the water loss, Trumbull/Hartford have not approved any additional repair, remediation, or reconstruction work for Plaintiff's home, and Trumbull/Hartford have not reimbursed Plaintiff for the full extent of benefits owed under his Additional Living Expense coverage. FIRST THEORY OF RECOVERY BREACH OF CONTRACT – TRUMBULL/HARTFORD 51. Plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each of the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-50 above. 52. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with Trumbull/Hartford to provide homeowner's insurance for his home. That Policy was in full force and effect at all times material hereto. 53. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Trumbull/Hartford of their claim arising from the water loss, as well as the resulting mold and biocontamination. 54. Plaintiff has complied with the terms and all conditions precedent under the Policy of insurance and has fully cooperated with Trumbull/Hartford in the investigation of his claim. 55. Trumbull/Hartford breached their contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract with Plaintiff by failing to provide coverage to pay Plaintiff all benefits to which he is entitled under the terms and conditions of the Policy. 56. As a result of Trumbull/Hartford’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has sustained financial losses, mental and emotional distress, and has been damaged in an amount exceeding $75,000. 57. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §3629(B), Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and statutory interest at the rate of 15% per annum. SECOND THEORY OF RECOVERY BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING – TRUMBULL/HARTFORD 58. Plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each of the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-57 above. 59. Trumbull/Hartford owed a duty to Plaintiff to deal fairly and act in good faith. Encompassed within this duty is the duty to thoroughly investigate the loss, fairly interpret all facts gathered, and promptly pay all benefits due to Plaintiff. 60. Trumbull/Hartford’s obligations to the Plaintiff arise from both express written terms of the insurance Policy, the Oklahoma Insurance Code, as well as implied obligations under Oklahoma law. 61. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to perform a prompt and proper investigation in regard to Plaintiff’s claim made under the Policy. 62. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to pay the full and fair amount for property damage sustained by Plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy. 63. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to fully and fairly consider and evaluate the facts that were known or should have been known to Trumbull/Hartford with regard to Plaintiff’s claim. 64. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by refusing, without proper cause, to pay Plaintiff all benefits he is owed under the Policy and pursuant to Oklahoma law. 65. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by purposefully, wrongfully, and repeatedly withholding pertinent benefits and coverage available to Plaintiff under the Policy. 66. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by knowingly and intentionally failing to engage in proper claims handling practices and failing to compensate its insured for losses covered under the Policy. 67. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in outcome-oriented investigation and claims handling practices. 68. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by putting its interest in maximizing financial gain and limiting payments/disbursements above the interests of its insured, the Plaintiff. 69. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to send a qualified adjuster to Plaintiff’s home to investigate and evaluate the full nature and scope of the loss and resulting damage. 70. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to create and approve a proper scope of work to return Plaintiff’s home to its pre-loss condition. 71. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to promptly respond to concerns for and the need for biocontamination remediation and failing to properly provide for remediation services. 72. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by failing to hire and/or train adjusters and/or utilize professionals with knowledge of the loss resulting in an underscoped and undervalued loss estimate. This failure is not unique to Plaintiff’s claim and represents a systemic practice resulting in the consistent undervaluing of claims of all insureds. 73. Trumbull/Hartford has implemented business practices, including undervaluing and refusing to pay for certain damages despite knowing the scope of loss requires such repairs, in an effort to maximize its profit and underpay its insureds. 74. Trumbull/Hartford breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith by failing to timely and properly investigate, evaluate, and pay benefits owed to Plaintiffs. 75. Trumball/Hartford’s conduct, as described above, is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract entered into with the Plaintiff and is violative of the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to first-party insureds. 76. Trumbull/Hartford has no reasonable basis for its refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiff benefits under the Policy for the damages caused by the covered loss and the mold/biocontamination resulting therefrom. 77. Because of Trumbull/Hartford’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has been unable to repair and remediate his home and thus, has not lived in the home since the loss. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result. 78. As a direct and proximate result of Trumbull/Hartford’s unfair claims handling conduct, Plaintiff’s claim was unnecessarily delayed, inadequately investigated, and wrongfully underscoped and undervalued. Said actions resulted in additional profits and a financial premium to Hartford. 79. The actions of Trumbull/Hartford during the handling of Plaintiff’s claim demonstrates it acted in reckless disregard for the rights of its insured and/or intentionally and with malice and breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith. Further, the actions of Trumbull/Hartford are consistent with engaging in a pervasive, consistent pattern of increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and/or avoidance of claims in bad faith so to achieve a collective corporate goal of increasing profits. Moreover, Trumball/Hartford’s pattern and practice of underscoping and undervaluing claims as a means to unreasonably withhold benefits from its insureds and/or in an attempt to settle disputes with its insureds for less than they are rightfully owed, constitutes a deliberate, willful pattern of abusive conduct by Trumbull/Hartford in handling claims under its homeowner’s policies. 80. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $75,000. THIRD THEORY OF RECOVERY BREACH OF CONTRACT – SERVICEMASTER 81. Plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each of the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-80 above. 82. Plaintiff entered into a contract with ServiceMaster to complete demolition and remediation associated with the water loss. 83. ServiceMaster failed to complete all necessary actions related to the services for which it was contracted. 84. As a result of ServiceMaster’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000. FOURTH THEORY OF RECOVERY NEGLIGENCE – SERVICEMASTER 85. Plaintiff hereby adopts and realleges each of the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-84 above. 86. ServiceMaster was retained to perform demolition and remediation work associated with the water loss at Plaintiff’s home. 87. ServiceMaster negligently performed the remediation work at Plaintiff’s home and failed to properly assess the remediation needs of Plaintiff’s home as a result of the water loss. 88. Among other things, ServiceMaster failed to properly remediate all areas of Plaintiff's home affected by the water loss, failed to properly investigate and inspect Plaintiff's home for mold/biocontamination relative to the water loss, failed to take comprehensive moisture measurements in the impacted areas, failed to remove all baseboards in impacted areas, failed to perform flood cuts of the drywall in all of the affected areas, and failed to properly mitigate the loss. 89. The negligent work by ServiceMaster, as generally described above, led to the development of mold/biocontamination in Plaintiff's home. 90. As a result of ServiceMaster's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $75,000. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Trumbull Insurance Company in an amount in excess of $75,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages, together with costs, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. Plaintiff also prays for judgment against Defendant The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., d/b/a The Hartford, in an amount in excess of $75,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages, together with costs, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. Plaintiff also prays for judgment against Defendant Oklahoma Hi-Tech, Inc. d/b/a ServiceMaster Restoration by RSI, in an amount in excess of $75,000, together with costs, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Jacob L. Rowe, OBA #21797 Andrea R. Rust, OBA #30422 FULMER SILL PLLC 1101 N. Broadway Ave., Ste 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 510-0077 Fax: (800)978-1345 Email: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS' LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED