Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Tulsa Insurance Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma insurance law lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendant on a breach of contract theory.

State Farm issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Kyle and Holly Hubbell for the property located at 18593 East 79th Street North, Owasso, Oklahoma. Dkt. # 25-1, at 1. The effective period of the policy was from July 1,2020 to July 1,2021. Id. As to the dwelling structure, State Farm agreed to “pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in Section I - Losses Not Included or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy.” Id. at 19. Coverage B of the policy applies to personal property, and State Farm agreed to pay for “accidental direct physical loss to the property” except to losses excluded or limited by the policy. Id. For coverage B, the policy excludes damage to personal property caused by “windstorm or hail . . . unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the structure causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust enters through this opening.” Id.

On April 14, 2021, Kyle Hubbell made a claim for wind and hail damage to the roof of the house and a detached garage, as well as damage to gutters, screens, and an outdoor fire pit. The storm giving rise to claim took place on July 11, 2020. Dkt. # 25-2, at 1. Johnny Gage, an independent insurance adjustor, was assigned to the claim and he scheduled an inspection of plaintiffs' property for April 24, 2021. Plaintiffs were not present when the inspection took place, but Jordan Gray of Native Roof Co. was present on behalf of plaintiffs. Id. at 3. Before the inspection, Gage reviewed an exterior image of the property, plaintiffs' insurance policy, and a weather report verifying that a hail storm took place on July 11, 2020. Dkt. # 25-5, at 3-4. Gage found minor hail damage to the shingles on the roof of the house, but he found no evidence that wind damaged the roof shingles. Dkt. # 25-2, at 3. There was evidence of “heavy foot traffic” and foot falls on the front slope of the roof, but this had nothing to with damage caused by hail. Id. Gage concluded that there was insufficient damage caused by hail to warrant full replacement of the roof of the house. Id. Gage also inspected the roof of a detached garage and found evidence of hail strikes on the roof shingles, but he found that the amount of damage did not require replacement of the garage roof. Id. Gage did not inspect the interior of the home or the garage, because plaintiffs did not make a claim for interior damage. Id.

Gage prepared an estimate for the replacement of some shingles on the roof of the house and garage, and he included damage to soft metal structures, window screens, and light fixtures as part of the estimate. Dkt. # 25-3. Gage contacted Holly Hubbell and notified her of the outcome of the inspection, and she made it clear to Gage that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the claim. Dkt. # 25-2. Gage advised Holly Hubbell that she had a right to request a second inspection. Id. State Farm subtracted the policy deductible and amounts for depreciation, and issued plaintiffs a payment of $1,174.69. Dkt. # 25-6.

Plaintiffs did not request a second inspection by State Farm, and they did not directly have any additional communication with State Farm about their insurance claim. On July 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a petition in Rogers County District Court alleging claims of breach of contract and bad faith against State Farm, and State Farm removed the case to this Court. Dkt. # 2. The petition states that this case involves a “wind and hail loss” that occurred at plaintiffs' home. Dkt. # 2-1, at 1. The parties submitted a joint status report, and plaintiffs stated that State Farm has failed to fully reimburse plaintiffs after “a severe storm caused wind and hail damage.” Dkt. # 13, at 1. Plaintiffs have provided State Farm a series of estimates for the cost of a new roof ranging from $41,194.25 to $76,922. Dkt. # 25-7; Dkt. # 25-8; Dkt. # 25-9; Dkt. # 25-10. In a sworn statement for loss signed by both plaintiffs, they specifically reference “hail” as the cause of the damage giving rise to the need for a new roof. Dkt. # 25-10.

Outcome:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. #25) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Roof Repairs to Other Homes (Dkt. # 28) and Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Punitive Damages, and Opening Brief in Support (Dkt. # 30) are granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Interior Damage, and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 29) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion to Limit Testimony of Greg Cannon and Opening Brief in Support (Dkt. # 33) is granted in part and denied in part as stated in this Opinion and Order.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's

Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. # 31) is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part as stated in this Opinion and Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine and Brief in Support (Dkt.

# 27) is granted in part and denied in part as stated in this Opinion and Order.
Hubbell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (N.D. Okla. 2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: