CJ-2026-2047 - Alicia Rankin v. Delisha Jones

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: an insurance company told a woman she stole her own car—a car a court had legally awarded to her in a divorce—then kept taking her premium payments for months after denying her claim. That’s not just cold. That’s ice-cold villain origin story energy. And now, Alicia Rankin is suing Clearcover Insurance, the driver who hit her, and the car’s former co-owner in Oklahoma County District Court, alleging the insurer didn’t just make a mistake—it ran a full-blown bad faith scam dressed up as customer service.

So who are we even talking about here? On one side, you’ve got Alicia Rankin, an Oklahoma County resident trying to rebuild her life post-divorce—no small task, but made infinitely harder when your insurance company turns on you like a backstabbing reality TV co-star. On the other side? Delisha Jones, who apparently owns the other vehicle involved in the crash (though we’re not entirely clear how she fits in beyond that), Jermaine Johnson, the guy actually behind the wheel when metal met metal, and Clearcover Insurance Company, Inc.—the real star of this drama. Clearcover isn’t some tiny mom-and-pop insurer; it’s a licensed foreign corporation doing business across Oklahoma, which means they’re supposed to play by the rules. But according to Rankin, they played dirty, weaponizing bureaucracy to avoid paying out a valid claim.

Here’s how this train wreck unfolded. Back in February 2025, Rankin finalized her divorce. Part of the settlement? She got the car. The court decree says so. But because the title wasn’t transferred immediately—she had 18 months to do it—the vehicle was still technically in both names. Fast forward to March 10, 2025: Rankin, now a newly single woman navigating life’s next chapter, buys an insurance policy from Clearcover. Smart move. Responsible adult energy. The policy kicks in, runs through September, and everything seems fine—until April 26, 2025, when Jermaine Johnson plows into her. Boom. Collision. Injuries. Damaged vehicles. The whole sad symphony of a bad day on the road.

Rankin does everything right. She notifies Clearcover. Files a claim. Waits. And then—crickets, followed by a gut punch: Clearcover denies the claim. Not just that, though. They don’t say, “Oops, paperwork issue.” No. They go full true crime documentary and accuse her of vehicle theft. That’s right—they tell both her and Delisha Jones that Rankin stole the car she was legally awarded in a divorce. Let that sink in. A court gave her the car. She had a policy. She paid her premiums. And the company meant to protect her instead accused her of grand larceny. The sheer audacity is almost impressive—if it weren’t so infuriating.

But wait, it gets better. Even after denying her claim on May 16, 2025, Clearcover kept pulling money from Rankin’s bank account. For months. They took her premiums while refusing to honor the very contract those payments were funding. That’s like a gym charging your membership after kicking you out and telling you you’re not allowed to use the equipment. Except here, the stakes aren’t leg day—they’re medical bills, car repairs, and mental health.

Rankin’s lawsuit lays out a laundry list of what she claims are Clearcover’s sins—11 specific failures, to be exact—all pointing to one thing: bad faith. In plain English, that means the insurer didn’t just make an honest mistake. They allegedly ignored facts, twisted policy language, refused to investigate properly, and flat-out lied to their own customer. They told Jones Rankin was a fraud. They misrepresented the truth to avoid paying benefits they knew were owed. And they did it all while still cashing her checks. That’s not just breach of contract—that’s a betrayal of the basic promise insurance is supposed to stand for: we’ve got your back when things go wrong.

Now, what does Rankin want? She’s asking for compensatory damages—money to cover what she lost: medical expenses, car repairs, emotional distress, attorney fees—and, crucially, punitive damages. That last one is the nuclear option. Punitive damages aren’t about making her whole; they’re about punishing the company for being that bad. They’re the legal system’s way of saying, “You didn’t just mess up—you acted like a jerk on purpose, so now you’re gonna pay extra.” And honestly? Given the facts, it’s not hard to see why she’s pushing for it. This isn’t a “sorry, our system glitched” situation. This is a pattern: deny, delay, defame, and keep charging.

Is $50,000 a lot? Well, we don’t know the exact number she’s seeking—her filing doesn’t specify a total demand—but in the world of insurance claims, even mid-five-figures can be a rounding error for a big company. Yet for Rankin, it could mean the difference between recovery and ruin. But the real cost here isn’t just financial. It’s the humiliation of being called a thief by the very company meant to protect you. It’s the anxiety of fighting for what’s yours while injured and vulnerable. And it’s the chilling message this sends to every other policyholder: Don’t trust them. They might turn on you.

Our take? Look, divorce is messy. Car crashes are traumatic. But insurance companies aren’t supposed to make it worse. The most absurd part of this whole saga isn’t just that Clearcover accused Rankin of stealing her own car—it’s that they kept taking her money while doing it. That’s not negligence. That’s performance art in corporate greed. And while we’re not rooting for anyone to get rich off a lawsuit, we are rooting for accountability. For the little guy to get a real shot at justice. For the record to show that you can’t gaslight your customers, rob them twice (once with denial, once with premiums), and just shrug it off.

This case isn’t just about a denied claim. It’s about trust. And if insurers can lie to their own policyholders, deny court-awarded ownership, and keep cashing checks like nothing’s wrong—then what’s the point of insurance at all? Maybe the real victim here isn’t just Alicia Rankin. Maybe it’s the idea that, when disaster strikes, someone’s got your back. Spoiler: sometimes, they don’t. Sometimes, they accuse you of grand theft auto instead.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

H. Craig Pitts

RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, PLLC

Relief Sought

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Alicia Rankin individual
Rep: H. Craig Pitts, OBA No. 16291, Emily Williams, OBA No. 33456

Defendants

Delisha Jones individual
Jermaine Johnson individual
Clearcover Insurance Company, Inc. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of insurance contract, bad faith claims handling, and punitive damages	Plaintiff alleges that Clearcover Insurance Company, Inc. breached her insurance contract and engaged in bad faith claims handling, resulting in financial and emotional damages.

Petition Text

856 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ALICIA RANKIN, Plaintiff, v. DELISTHA JONES, an individual, JERMAINE JOHNSON, an individual; and CLEARCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendants. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 18, 2026 9:27 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case No. Case Number CJ-2026-2047 PETITION Plaintiff Alicia Rankin ("Plaintiff") for her action against Defendants Delisha Jones, ("Jones"), Jermaine Johnson ("Johnson") and Clearcover Insurance Company, Inc. ("Clearcover") alleges and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Oklahoma and a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Upon information and belief, Jones is a citizen of the state of Oklahoma and a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Jones has an objective interest in this lawsuit as the owner of the vehicle involved in the subject collision. 3. Upon information and belief, Johnson is a citizen of the state of Oklahoma and a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Johnson has an objective interest in this lawsuit since he was driving the vehicle at the time of the subject collision. 4. Clearcover is a foreign corporation, licensed to conduct business as an insurance company in Oklahoma, and regularly conducts business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. The acts and omissions occurred in Oklahoma County. 6. Venue is proper in this Court. FACTS 7. Plaintiff at all times relevant herein was insured under Clearcover Policy No. OK233186 (the “Policy”) with an effective date of March 10, 2025 through September 10, 2025. 8. The Policy was in full force and effect at the time of the covered vehicle collision. 9. On April 26, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendant Johnson were involved in a vehicle collision where both parties sustained injuries to themselves and their vehicles. 10. Plaintiff timely submitted a claim to Clearcover, and the same was denied. 11. Clearcover told Jones that Plaintiff was fraudulent on her application for insurance and that Clearwater was denying coverage. Clearcover told Plaintiff the same thing. 12. Specifically, Clearcover claimed Plaintiff stole the vehicle. This is a lie. Plaintiff at all times owned the vehicle covered under the Policy. 13. On February 25, 2025, a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage was entered between Plaintiff and her ex-husband wherein the subject vehicle was awarded to Plaintiff. Plaintiff had eighteen (18) months to transfer title of the vehicle. 14. The vehicle was a marital asset and was owned by both Plaintiff and her ex-husband. Plaintiff was at all times the “owner” of the vehicle, as required by the Policy. 15. Despite denying the claim on May 16, 2025, Clearcover continued to draft Plaintiff’s bank account for the Policy premiums for several months. 16. Clearcover breached Plaintiff’s insurance contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing through its handling of Plaintiff’s claim and the denial of the same. Specifically, as a matter of routine claims practice in handling similar claims, Clearwater breached its duty by: a. failing and refusing payment and other Policy benefits owed to Plaintiff at a time when it knew Plaintiff was entitled to those benefits; b. failing to properly or adequately investigate Plaintiff’s claim and obtain additional information both in connection with the original refusal and following the receipt of additional information; c. withholding payment of benefits owed to Plaintiff knowing that this claim for those benefits was valid; d. refusing to honor Plaintiff's claim in some instances for reasons contrary to the express provisions of the subject Policy and/or Oklahoma law; e. refusing to honor Plaintiff’s claim in some instances by knowingly misconstruing and misapplying provisions of the subject Policy; f. failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and reasonable handling of claims arising under the Policy, including Plaintiff's claim; g. not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of Plaintiff’s claim once liability had become reasonably clear; h. forcing Plaintiff, pursuant to its standard claims practice, to retain counsel in order to secure benefits it knew were payable to her; i. failing to properly evaluate any investigation that was performed; j. not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement of Plaintiff's claim once liability had become reasonably clear; and k. Telling co-Defendant that Plaintiff was a liar, and stole the subject vehicle, all in violation of the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and resulting in financial benefit to Clearcover. 17. As a direct and proximate result of Clearcover’s unlawful acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered the loss of the Policy benefits, loss of coverage, embarrassment, anxiety, frustration, mental and emotional distress, and/or other consequential damages. 18. Clearcover’s acts and omissions toward Plaintiff constitute reckless disregard for her rights and/or intentional (with malice) violations of its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured. Therefore, Oklahoma law mandates an award of punitive damages in Plaintiff’s favor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Alicia Rankin demands judgment for compensatory and punitive damages, plus any interest, costs, attorney fees and other relief this Court deems just and otherwise allowable by law. RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, PLLC H. Craig Pitts, OBA No. 16291 Emily Williams, OBA No. 33456 1503 E. 19th Street Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 340-1900 Fax: (405) 340-1001 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED