IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
SETH HAMM and SAMANTHA BABB,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; and J CHARLES INSURANCE, LLC,
Defendants.
PETITION
Plaintiffs Seth Hamm and Samantha Babb ("Plaintiffs"), for their causes of action against Defendants Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company ("AVP"), Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") and J Charles Insurance, LLC ("Agent") (collectively, "Defendants"), hereby alleges and states as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are residents of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant AVP is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. AVP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Allstate family of companies and may be found and served via its statutory service agent the Oklahoma Insurance Department in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant Allstate is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. Allstate may be found and served via its statutory service agent the Oklahoma Insurance Department in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Allstate is responsible for establishing the claims handling practices, claims training processes, strategic direction, and oversight of
AVP’s claims operations. AVP’s claim personnel and staff are employees of Allstate. Accordingly, where this Petition refers to AVP and Allstate collectively, it refers to them as the “Allstate Defendants.”
4. Agent is a domestic limited liability company operating as an insurance agency in Norman, Oklahoma. At the time, Agent was an agent and/or ostensible agent of Allstate Defendants.
5. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance with the Allstate Defendants to provide coverage for Plaintiff’s dwelling (“Insured Property”) located in Oklahoma. Plaintiffs purchased what Defendants represented and held out to be a full replacement cost homeowner’s insurance policy, (the “Policy”) through the offices of Defendant Agent. The Policy that was issued by Agent was in force and effect at the time of the loss in question.
6. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 137 and 143.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Plaintiffs contacted Agent to obtain replacement cost insurance coverage for the Insured Property in 2024. Plaintiff specifically requested a replacement cost policy that would fully replace any damaged part of the Insured Property in the event of a covered loss. This request was not for “adequate” coverage, but for coverage up to the specific dollar figure replacement cost value of Plaintiffs’ home.
8. Agent recommended Allstate Defendants’ coverage, which Agent represented as replacement cost coverage. Plaintiffs relied on Agent’s representations and purchased the same. Plaintiffs reasonably trusted and believed Agent had the requisite insurance agent skills and expertise to properly procure the replacement insurance coverage Plaintiff requested.
9. Thereafter, Allstate Defendants issued the Policy to Plaintiffs.
10. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they would conduct themselves in accordance with Oklahoma law and would fully and fairly investigate and pay claims. Plaintiffs relied on these representations.
11. On or about April 27, 2025, Plaintiffs’ Insured Property suffered covered water damage. The subject Policy was in place on the date of loss. Consequently, Plaintiffs properly and timely submitted a claim to Allstate Defendants for the damage.
12. Allstate Defendants agreed the cause of loss was covered, but purposefully and knowingly under-scoped Plaintiffs’ damage. Allstate Defendants prepared a lowball estimate and made a measly payment accordingly. Critically, Allstate Defendants never sent an adjuster or even a third-party vendor to Plaintiffs’ Insured Property to inspect the claimed damage. Allstate Defendants failed to undertake (or have undertaken on their behalf) any physical claims handling conduct.
13. As a result, Plaintiffs had to pay out of pocket to remediate the damage to the best of their ability and still are without the funds necessary to conduct all needed repairs.
14. Had Agent disclosed Allstate Defendants’ scheme to lowball policyholders by cutting corners on claims handling (including failure to deploy an adjuster or inspector to the Insured Property), Plaintiffs never would have purchased the Policy. Plaintiffs would have sought coverage from another carrier. Instead, Plaintiffs bought the Policy because Agent “promises authenticity, honesty, and transparency.”1 But that is not the treatment Plaintiffs received. Only after suffering a loss did they learn Agent’s promises were little more than overstuffed sales pitches.
1 See https://jcharlesinsurance.com/ (last accessed April 20, 2026).
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiffs fully incorporate into this Paragraph each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if each were fully iterated verbatim herein, and for their additional claims against the Allstate Defendants does hereby and further allege as follows:
15. Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance (the Policy) with the Allstate Defendants to provide coverage for the Insured Property. Plaintiffs’ Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto.
16. Plaintiffs provided proper and timely notice to the Allstate Defendants of covered water damage by filing a claim.
17. Plaintiffs have in all material ways complied with the Policy’s terms and conditions.
18. The Allstate Defendants breached their contractual obligations to Plaintiffs under the Policy by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits to which they are entitled under the terms and conditions of the Policy.
19. As a result of the Allstate Defendants’ 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 interests.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
Plaintiffs fully incorporate into this Paragraph each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if each were fully iterated verbatim herein, and for their additional claims against the Allstate Defendants does hereby and further allege as follows:
20. The Allstate Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
21. The Allstate Defendants knowingly, intentionally, purposefully, wrongfully, and repeatedly breached their duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in a pattern and practice of at least the following acts and omissions:
a. refusing, without proper cause, to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under the Policy and pursuant to Oklahoma law;
b. engaging in an outcome-oriented investigation on Plaintiffs’ claim designed to deny and/or reduce the amount of money paid to Plaintiffs under the Policy;
c. limiting Plaintiffs’ rights;
d. wrongfully and purposefully reducing the fair amount of Plaintiffs’ claim;
e. withholding pertinent benefits, coverages, and other provisions due to Plaintiffs under the terms and conditions of the Policy in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§1250.1–1250.16;
f. forcing Plaintiffs to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits applicable and available under the terms and conditions of the Policy;
g. engaging in the improper claims practices enumerated herein knowing that their policyholder would suffer financial harm;
h. failing to:
i) engage in proper claims handling practices;
ii) perform a proper, timely, fair, and objective investigation of Plaintiffs’ damages and claim;
iii) base their refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiffs benefits owed under the Policy for damages caused by a covered loss on a reasonable basis;
i. engaging in a pattern and practice of:
iv) outcome-oriented investigations and claims handling practices;
v) adjusting claims in an arbitrary and capricious way;
vi) estimating repairs that disregard opinions and findings of independent contractors so as to under-scope damages; and
vii) refusing arbitrarily and capriciously to issue indemnity payments owed to insureds (including Plaintiffs).
22. The Allstate Defendants’ conduct, as described above, constitutes bad faith and is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The Allstate Defendants had no reasonable basis in their refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiffs the replacement cost for covered damage to the Insured Property.
23. As a consequence of the Allstate Defendants’ breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to them, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, and physical and emotional suffering that naturally results from an insurance failure, and have been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.
24. The Allstate Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or reckless and is sufficiently egregious so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
25. Plaintiffs further allege the Allstate Defendants enjoyed increased financial benefits and ill-gotten gains as a direct result of the wrongful conduct described above herein, which resulted in injury to Plaintiffs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE
Plaintiffs fully incorporate into this Paragraph each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if each were fully iterated verbatim herein, and for their additional claims against Defendants does hereby and further allege as follows:
26. Agent owed Plaintiffs a duty to act in good faith and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance for Plaintiffs.
27. Agent had a duty to accurately inform Plaintiffs of all coverages, benefits, limitations, risks and exclusions in the coverage procured.
28. Agent represented it provided Plaintiffs with a replacement cost policy that would restore Plaintiffs’ Insured Property to its original condition in the event of a loss.
29. Agent breached its duty to Plaintiffs and is liable because, through the fault of Agent, Agent did not procure insurance coverage as Plaintiffs requested and, accordingly, Plaintiffs suffered a loss.
30. Agent violated its duty to act with reasonable care, skill, and diligence in at least the following ways:
a. Procuring coverage that deviated substantially and materially from that which Plaintiffs requested and Agent promised;
b. Procuring, maintaining, and renewing a Policy that did not provide coverage to fully restore Plaintiffs’ Insured Property to its pre-loss condition;
c. Failing to inform Plaintiffs of the limitations and risks of the Policy Agent procured for Plaintiffs;
d. Failing to monitor and review the Policy to ensure it provided appropriate and adequate coverage;
e. Procuring a Policy that did not accurately reflect the replacement cost of Plaintiffs’ Insured Dwelling.
31. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Agent’s actions and representations to their detriment. It was foreseeable that failure to procure coverage as Plaintiffs requested and Agent promised could unnecessarily expose Plaintiffs to significant harm, losses, and damages.
32. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to them, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering, and have been damaged in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.
33. The conduct of Defendants was intentional, willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
34. Allstate Defendants are vicariously liable for the conduct of Agent.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE MISREPRESENTATION
Plaintiffs fully incorporate into this Paragraph each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if each were fully iterated verbatim herein, and for their additional claims against Defendants does hereby and further allege as follows:
35. Agent represented to Plaintiffs that the Policy would provide full replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property.
36. Agent further represented to Plaintiffs that the Policy was a replacement cost policy, despite the fact that Allstate Defendants do not offer replacement cost policies.
37. The scope of coverage promised that was supposedly procured by Agent was illusory. Contrary to what Defendants promised, the Policy failed to:
a. provide actual replacement cost coverage;
b. indemnify Plaintiffs to their pre-loss condition;
c. comply with Plaintiffs’ requests; and
d. comply with Agent’s representations.
38. Agent misrepresented and/or concealed pertinent material facts from Plaintiffs as follows:
a. Allstate Defendants do not actually sell replacement cost policies for homeowners in Oklahoma;
b. Agent procured and the Allstate Defendants provided the comprehensive scope of coverage Plaintiffs specifically requested;
c. Agent would obtain all information necessary to accurately calculate the Insured Property’s replacement cost value;
d. the replacement cost valuation (as Agent calculated) was accurate and commensurate with the Insured Property’s condition; and
e. the replacement cost valuation (that Agent calculated), and for which premiums were paid, was equal to the estimated replacement cost (100% insurance to value).
64. Plaintiffs were misled by Agent’s misrepresentations and constructive fraud. As a result of Agent’s breach of duty, it gained an advantage for itself by misleading Plaintiffs to their prejudice. Agent’s compensation is directly tied to a portion of the premiums derived from policies its agency writes. Agent is thus incentivized to issue policies (and reap the associated premiums), while disregarding whether the policy actually provides coverage as requested.
65. As a result of the Defendants’ constructive fraud and misrepresentation, Plaintiffs sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to them, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering, and have been damaged in an amount exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).
66. Plaintiffs are further entitled to reformation of the insurance contract to provide coverage consistent with Agent’s misrepresentations.
67. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, and/or was grossly negligent, and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against Defendants, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, and J Charles Insurance, LLC, for:
(a) Actual and punitive damages each in an amount in excess of $75,000.00;
(b) Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by any and/or all of the Defendants as a direct result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct; and
(c) Prejudgment interests, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff D. Maffr, OBA No. 16080
Carole Dulisse, OBA No. 18047
Ashton Poarch, OBA No. 34308
Nick Marr, OBA No. 34284
MARR LAW FIRM
3100 N.W. 149th Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73134
Telephone: 405.236.8000
Facsimile: 405.236.8025
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
